ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

The Welsh Cavalry

Andrea Leadsom: What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the future of the 1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards, the Welsh cavalry.

Cheryl Gillan: Before I answer the question, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the 10 British servicemen who have been killed in action since our last session of Welsh questions, including five who were from, or attached to, the 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh. They were courageous and talented soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of our nation, and we will always remember them.
	The Army is conducting a study of its future force structure. The outcome of the study will be announced once decisions have been made. Until then, it is not possible to comment on which specific units may be affected.

Andrea Leadsom: May I urge my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the numerous constituents who have written to me about the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, to work closely with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to try to ensure that this superb regiment is retained?

Cheryl Gillan: I have stressed that the continuation of a strong military presence in Wales is of great importance both to the local communities and to the country as a whole. I proudly display at the entrance to Gwydyr House the emblem of the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, which celebrates the bravery and commitment of our armed forces in Wales on behalf of Queen and country. I will continue to give every support to our Welsh regiments, including the QDG.

Nick Smith: The feet-dragging by the Ministry of Defence over the future of the Welsh cavalry is deeply damaging to its morale. Will the Secretary of State strongly urge Defence Ministers to keep it?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I have fully supported the Welsh cavalry—the QDG. I will take no lessons from a party which, in restructuring
	the Army, consigned more than 600 years of military tradition in Wales to the history books when it abolished the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales to form the Royal Welsh. I, certainly, will continuously press the Welsh regiments’ case at the highest level, and the hon. Gentleman should take comfort from that.

James Gray: Does the Secretary of State agree that abolishing the QDG would be almost as bad as abolishing, for example, the Welsh Guards? Will she impress on her Cabinet colleagues the central importance of the regimental system to the morale and effectiveness of the British Army as a whole?

Cheryl Gillan: My distinguished hon. Friend has himself served in the armed forces, and I agree with him entirely. On 2 June I attended the home-coming parade and the reception in Cardiff for the Queen’s Dragoon Guards as part of the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations, and I know that the morale of units that are so closely associated with Wales needs to continue.

Owen Smith: May I first associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the sacrifice made by all the Welsh men and women who fought for this country? They should never be forgotten in the House or in the country.
	I wonder whether the Secretary of State could bring herself to comment on the worrying rumours that, while the Welsh cavalry may well be saved following a campaign across the House, the price that we may pay for that is the loss of one of the battalions of the Royal Welsh, with its 700 jobs in Wales?

Cheryl Gillan: Let me just remind the House that the last Labour Government left the MOD budget with a £38 billion black hole, and that it has been brought back into balance for the first time in a generation by this Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman—who is a Johnny-come-lately to this campaign—that I will continue to give my undiluted support to our Welsh regiments, but, as I have said, no decisions have yet been made. There is a great deal of speculation, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should make people feel so insecure.

Owen Smith: Despite the bluster, the Secretary of State’s silence on the fate of the Royal Welsh will have been heard throughout the armed forces, including those in Afghanistan, where the 1st Battalion is currently serving. Does she not agree that it will be a truly pyrrhic victory for the QDG if a cap badge is saved in Wales but we lose a battalion with several hundred jobs?

Cheryl Gillan: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but let me repeat that no decisions have been made. Let me also repeat that I will take no lessons from a party that got rid of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales. I can take advice from much better people than the hon. Gentleman.

Roger Williams: I, too, urge the Secretary of State to make any representations necessary to keep the Royal Welsh, because it recruits very well in its traditional recruitment areas and any loss of a battalion would limit the opportunities for young Welsh people to join an infantry regiment.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. As he knows, there is huge affection for all these regiments. Since the moment I was appointed as Secretary of State for Wales, I have made it my business to visit as many parts of the Army services in Wales as possible, and I continue to support the regiments. This issue is also important as we are seeking to recruit people into the reserves and the Territorial Army. These brigades are a great recruiting sergeant, and long may they continue. Certainly, I will always make that case, although the decision does not rest with this office.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not conducting a private conversation. If she would be good enough to look in the direction of the House, we might hear her, for which we would all be deeply obliged.

Manufacturing and Engineering

Neil Carmichael: What assessment she has made of the importance of supply chains to manufacturing and engineering in Wales.

David Jones: The Government recognise the high importance of supply chains to the manufacturing and engineering sectors in Wales, both of which are significant components of the Welsh economy.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Minister agree that small and medium-sized enterprises are a key part of the economy, both in Wales and England, and that the Government are absolutely right to focus on making sure they are attached to these supply chains, to develop their products and services further?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is entirely right to highlight the mutual dependence of supply chains that emanate in England and Welsh manufacturing industry, and vice versa. In fact, Airbus accounts indirectly for about 135,000 jobs. The Welsh Government, to whom economic development is devolved, should be keen to foster those supply chains and, for that purpose, should be working very closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Jessica Morden: On Friday, I visited the Orb works in Newport, which, thanks to a very large investment in the supply chain by Tata, is now producing world-class electrical steel, which is good news for the work force and for manufacturing in Newport. Steelmakers in Wales are still experiencing a subdued market, however, as yesterday’s news showed, so what more are the Government doing to help steelmaking in Wales?

David Jones: The Government are very closely engaged with the steelmaking industry via UK Trade and Investment, and I would reiterate the point that, given the news we heard yesterday, it is extremely important that the Welsh Assembly Government should work closely with UKTI to foster that industry.

Jonathan Edwards: Does the Minister agree that one of the major challenges facing the Welsh economy is the deficit in exports generated in Wales and imported goods and
	services from other states, as well as from within the UK? What discussions is the Minister having with Cabinet colleagues and the Welsh Government to expand and diversify the Welsh export base—in particular in manufacturing, once a great strength of the Welsh economy?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to point that out. Over the next few weeks there will be an enormous opportunity for Welsh industry in the shape of the British business embassy, which exporters and importers from all over the world will be attending. I understand that the Welsh Assembly Government are now engaging, albeit tentatively, with that embassy, but I urge them to do more.

Economy

Kerry McCarthy: What discussions she has had with Welsh Government Ministers on the economic outlook for Wales.

Robert Halfon: What recent assessment she has made of the economy in Wales; and if she will make a statement.

Andrew Miller: What discussions she has had with Welsh Government Ministers on the economic outlook for Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I have regular discussions with Welsh Government Ministers about the prospects of the Welsh economy and the need for closer working to help create the right environment for jobs, growth and prosperity.

Kerry McCarthy: Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 16% in the last year—not helped by the Government’s scrapping of the future jobs fund. Is it not time that the Welsh Secretary took lessons from the Welsh Government and emulated their jobs growth scheme, started in April, with the aim of creating 4,000 jobs?

Cheryl Gillan: I agree that if there are lessons to be learned from the Welsh Government, we must learn them, but the hon. Lady must remember that unemployment is a matter for both the UK Government and the Welsh Government, and under the last Labour Government, youth unemployment in Wales rose by 73% over the Parliament.

Robert Halfon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of figures from the Office for National Statistics and the AA showing that more than £16 million could be injected into the Welsh economy this year alone because Labour’s 3p August rise in fuel duty has now been scrapped?

Cheryl Gillan: Yes; my hon. Friend knows that the Government have shown that they have listened and are willing to help motorists further with their cost of living by acting at a time when the pump prices are still at historic highs and deferring the increase to January. I pay tribute to him, as he has of course played a great part in the campaign and has, in part, brought about this change by the Government, which will be welcomed throughout Wales, by businesses and families alike.

Andrew Miller: The Secretary of State talks about creating the right environment, and I agree with her on that. She will also recognise that in north-east Wales, Cheshire and the Wirral there is a common travel-to-work area. Will she put her support behind the campaign to improve and upgrade the Wrexham to Bidston line, as that would help to service that travel-to-work area and create the right environment?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman and I used to serve on the Select Committee on Science and Technology together, and I know that he is a constant champion for improving the travel arrangements in and around his area of the country. I have always supported the Wrexham to Bidston line, but I have always prioritised the electrification of the valleys lines and of course that unfinished business of getting the electrification down to Swansea. The electrification of the Wrexham to Bidston line would be close behind that.

Mark Williams: Tourism is a crucial sector in the Welsh economy, not least in mid-Wales and Ceredigion. The contrast between the procession of the Olympic torch and the floods that we suffered in Ceredigion could not be any starker. I am appreciative of the Secretary of State’s visit to Ceredigion last week. Will she reiterate the message that the county council gave her, which was that Ceredigion is very much open for business?

Cheryl Gillan: I was delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to visit his constituency and look at the aftermath of the floods. It is when the media have left that it gets most difficult for the people who have been affected. I was impressed by the way in which that community has got itself back on its feet, and it certainly is open for business. If anyone is reading the record of or listening to these questions, they should know that his constituency and Ceredigion is one of the best places to take a holiday and that it really is open for business.

Hywel Williams: How is the mobility of Welsh labour improved if young people who are leaving the family home, getting on their bikes and taking low-paid work elsewhere are prevented from paying for their housing costs by the Government’s policy?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman and I share the same concern about the level of youth unemployment. The unemployment rate in Wales remains unacceptably high at 9%, but I would have thought that he might have welcomed the fall in the level of unemployment in Wales for the fourth month in a row. It means that the economy is moving in the right direction for many of the members of the work force who are still looking for work.

Stephen Mosley: Has my right hon. Friend considered the economic impact of having different corporation tax regimes on either side of the English-Welsh border, especially since, as we have heard, there is a single economic sub-region in Cheshire and north-east Wales?

Cheryl Gillan: There is huge concern among the businesses that I have talked to about any prospect of changes in the corporation tax rate across the border between
	England and Wales. As my hon. Friend will know, that relates to the purpose of the Silk commission, which I established and which is looking particularly at the areas of taxation and accountability. I hope that it will report later this year and we will be able to see its recommendations.

Nia Griffith: Hard-pressed households across Wales will certainly welcome the Chancellor’s latest U-turn on the proposed August increase in fuel duty, but with Office for National Statistics figures today showing that borrowing is rocketing because this Government have created a double-dip recession, will the Secretary of State speak up for struggling businesses in Wales and the 130,000 people still looking for work, and ask the Chancellor to do a U-turn on his economic plans?

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the new Opposition Front-Bench team. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who stepped down from the Front Bench last month and will be greatly missed. I welcomed the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, during the Welsh Grand Committee, but I would like to do so again.
	I say to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) that, in addition to the support we have already announced, the decision that has been made to cut the fuel duty and scrap the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator, thus ensuring that fuel duty is frozen for 21 months, will help businesses and families in Wales. I am very surprised that she did not rise to the Dispatch Box to welcome that.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Secretary of State for that, but we do have quite a lot of questions to get through.

Welsh Assembly (Elections)

Ian Lucas: What discussions she has had with Welsh Government Ministers and Assembly Members on the Green Paper on future electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales; and if she will make a statement.

Cheryl Gillan: I published the Green Paper on future electoral arrangements on 21 May. I have spoken to all four party leaders in the Assembly, including the First Minister, about the Green Paper.

Ian Lucas: The First Minister of Wales says that the Prime Minister said to him that he would not take forward changes to the Assembly voting system without the consent of the Assembly. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is the UK Government’s position?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman would have had the opportunity to discuss that at the Welsh Grand Committee on Monday at 11.30 am, but I understand that Labour objected to the relevant motion yesterday. I now know that that is because Labour MPs have a problem getting up in the morning and getting to work by 11.30 on a Monday—[ Interruption. ] I have therefore decided to cancel the Welsh Grand Committee and Labour now has the opportunity to call a debate in its own time.
	The Prime Minister has met the First Minister on a number of occasions and I believe that that matter, among others, was discussed. I am not aware of any firm commitments made by the Prime Minister.

Welsh Identity

Greg Mulholland: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on promoting the Welsh identity.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on promoting and capitalising on Wales’ unique identity as a constituent nation of the United Kingdom.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for that answer. Nothing promotes the Welsh identity better than the wonderfully rousing national anthem “Land of My Fathers,” but it is an affront to the people of Wales when the England team wrongly use the United Kingdom’s national anthem when they play. Does the Minister agree that England should emulate Wales, be clear on the difference between England and the United Kingdom, and introduce a rousing national anthem of our own?

David Jones: As a Welshman, I feel rather chary about intruding on English matters such as an English national anthem. As a Welshman, I sing “God Save the Queen” just as enthusiastically and just as badly as I sing “Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau”.

David Hanson: Does the Minister agree that as well as Welsh Members of Parliament we are British Members of Parliament and that as Welsh Members of Parliament we should be able to speak and vote on matters that affect our constituents, even those that affect our constituents from over the border? In my case, that includes hospitals, business, transport, defence and other matters.

David Jones: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be referring to the West Lothian question, on which, as he knows, there is a commission. It would be refreshing if Labour Members wished to debate such matters in Grand Committee rather than running scared.

House Building

John Howell: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and others on the residential construction industry in Wales.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a range of issues, including the construction industry in Wales. I have written to the Welsh Government offering to facilitate discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government to explore the possible extension of the NewBuy scheme to Wales.

John Howell: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the approach to planning and building regulations being adopted by the Labour Welsh Government is having an adverse effect on the construction industry in Wales?

David Jones: In Wales, an increasingly onerous planning and building regulations system is developing. Both planning and building regulations are key to the development of new housing and, at a time when England is relaxing that regime, the Welsh Assembly Government are making it more oppressive.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am rather disappointed that there will be no Welsh Grand Committee on Monday; I do not know whether it is to do with alarm clocks or whatever else. There will be plenty of other opportunities for debating such matters on the Floor of the House in due course and that could have been a good first debate.
	On housing, the construction industry employs 100,000 people in Wales. Will the Minister please make representations so that renovations are not subject to VAT? The problem is that new build is not subject to it but renovations are, and the vast majority of renovations are carried out by small and medium-sized firms.

David Jones: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Grand Committee and I agree with him entirely. My information tells me that it is the onerous planning and building regulations regime that is the biggest deterrent to new house building in Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd: I understand that the Welsh Government and the Treasury are currently discussing the whole issue of the Barnett formula and the housing revenue account subsidy scheme. That has been done away with in England, and never existed in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It cost Wales £73 million last year—money that could have been put to good use repairing council homes. Will he please further these discussions?

David Jones: The Welsh Assembly Government are doing considerably better in financial terms under this Government than many other spending Departments, and the right hon. Gentleman should take that into account.

Albert Owen: Regional pay affects local economies in the poorest regions of Wales. Does the Minister agree that construction workers and construction firms in north-west Wales, in Cemaes bay and Colwyn bay, should be paid the same as those in Torbay and Buckinghamshire, as should teachers in those areas?

David Jones: Increasingly, Welsh house builders are leaving Wales to build in England, and it is good that firms such as Watkin Jones, which the hon. Gentleman will know, at least are keeping local employees. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Let us have a bit of order for Mr David Rutley.

Broadband

David Rutley: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues and Ministers in the Welsh Government on improving broadband infrastructure in Wales.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, Welsh Government Ministers and other interested parties on improving broadband infrastructure in Wales.

David Rutley: Superfast broadband is an important priority in Macclesfield in our rural communities, just as it is in towns and villages across Wales. Is my hon. Friend disappointed that the Labour Welsh Government still have not announced the preferred bidder for the next-generation broadband for Wales project despite having promised to do so in December last year?

David Jones: Yes, the Welsh Assembly Government have been given double the expected Barnett consequential in order to deliver broadband infrastructure in Wales. I am reliably informed that an announcement will be made this summer.

Chris Ruane: How will the Minister ensure that BT is not the monopoly supplier of broadband in north Wales?

David Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman had better speak to his colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, who will shortly be allotting the contract for broadband in Wales.

Human Trafficking Commissioner

Peter Bone: What discussions she has had with the First Minister on the effectiveness in Wales of the Human Trafficking Commissioner.

David Jones: Combating human trafficking is a key priority for the Government, and we fully recognise the importance of tackling the issue in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not discussed this issue with the First Minister, although she has met the anti-human trafficking co-ordinator for Wales. [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. These are extremely serious matters. I think people would expect us to treat them with some seriousness and to listen to Mr Peter Bone.

Peter Bone: I thank the Minister for his response. The Prime Minister is leading Europe in the fight against human trafficking, but could we not learn something in England by adopting the Welsh idea of having an English commissioner against human trafficking?

David Jones: The principal reason that Wales has an anti-human trafficking co-ordinator is that, while policing and justice are undevolved, such issues as child care are devolved. It therefore makes sense for there to be a co-ordinator in Wales. In England, where there is no such issue of devolution, the question does not arise.

Devolution

Harriett Baldwin: What recent progress has been made by the commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons.

Cheryl Gillan: The commission expects to report during the current parliamentary Session.

Harriett Baldwin: Would the Secretary of State like to tell the House what evidence she has given to the commission?

Cheryl Gillan: So far I have not been asked to give any evidence to the commission, but I understand that there will be a long discussion about the issue. I know that my hon. Friend is especially keen to give evidence and to provide information to the commission, and I am sure that she will have that opportunity.

Peter Hain: On devolution, does the Secretary of State agree that any fundamental change to the voting system for the Assembly must at least have broad inter-party consensus and the agreement of the Welsh Government to avoid another referendum, because the system was endorsed by the 1997 referendum?

Cheryl Gillan: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I paid tribute to him, but I hope that he will read the Hansard report. We will miss him on the Front Bench.
	The legislation governing any changes to the electoral voting system for the Assembly was put in place by a Labour Government. The power clearly remains here. Had the intention been different, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have changed the situation himself through the Government of Wales Act 2006.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Helen Grant: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 June.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Helen Grant: Is not it stupid to vote for House of Lords reform, but against the programme motion?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have been discussing this issue for 100 years, and it really is time to make progress. The truth of the matter is that there are opponents of Lords reform in every party—in the Conservative party, in the Labour party and in the Liberal Democrats in the other place—but there is a majority in this House for a mainly elected House of Lords, and I believe that there is a majority for that in the country. However, if those who support Lords reform do not get out there and back it,
	it will not happen—that is the crucial point. It is absolutely hopeless—in life and in politics—to do what the Leader of the Opposition is doing: saying that he is in favour of it and he is also against it. It is hopeless.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister said on 11 April:
	“I will defend every part of that Budget. I worked on it very closely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer line by line.”
	What went wrong?

David Cameron: The fuel duty increase was a Labour tax rise—[Hon. Members: “U-turn!”] It cannot be a U-turn to get rid of a Labour tax increase. They put in place 12 increases on fuel duty in government, they left behind six increases in fuel duty, and I am proud of the fact that we are dealing with them.

Edward Miliband: Then it was all part of a seamless political strategy. Unfortunately, they forgot to tell the Transport Secretary, who went out and defended the increase; they forgot to tell the Cabinet in the morning, although the Chancellor briefed it on the economic situation; and they forgot to tell their own Back Benchers, and sent them out to defend the old policy. Let us call it what it is: another case of panic at the pumps. Month after month, every time Labour Members have proposed putting more money in people’s pockets to get the economy moving, the Prime Minister has denounced the policy as irresponsible, yet yesterday the Chancellor said that this was about doing precisely that. Why does not the Prime Minister admit it—plan A has failed?

David Cameron: Does the right hon. Gentleman support stopping the fuel increase? Yes? Then why not get up and congratulate the Government on being on the side of the motorist and the people who work hard and do the right thing? That is who we are helping. Ever since we came to office, we have been defusing Labour’s tax bombshell. We defused their jobs tax and their increases in council tax, and we have defused their increases in fuel tax. Labour Members should be congratulating us on being on the side of those who work hard and do the right thing.

Edward Miliband: I am afraid it is back to the bunker after that answer. Even on this Government’s own measure of success, borrowing went up yesterday. No wonder they want to change the exam system—the Chancellor cannot get the maths right. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the reason this Government have had to borrow £3 billion more than this time last year is that tax revenues are down and the costs of economic failure are going up? It is all the result of double-dip recession made in Downing street.

David Cameron: So on fuel tax, the right hon. Gentleman is against it, though he is in favour of it, and on borrowing, he thinks it is too high but he wants to put it up. I think it is back to school.

Edward Miliband: I know the Prime Minister finds the shadow Chancellor irritating, but it was the shadow Chancellor who called for the fuel duty cut before he did it. The Government are not just economically incompetent; they are unfair as well. The right hon. Gentleman has made six U-turns, but not on two particular
	decisions in his Budget—the tax cut for millionaires, paid for by the tax rise on pensioners. He says he has been listening to the electorate. What feedback has he had on those two particular proposals?

David Cameron: On the shadow Chancellor, he is the man who put the fuel tax increase into the Budget in the first place. What we have been doing is getting rid of Labour’s tax increases. The Leader of the Opposition asks me about the top rate of tax. I think it is wrong to have a top rate of tax that is higher than that of France, Germany or Italy. For 13 years of a Labour Government in which he served, the top rate of tax was 40p. The top rate of tax is now going to be 45p. Again, I think a “Thank you” would be in order.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister claims to be part of the way in which the decision on the fuel tax was made. The Chancellor hid away yesterday, refusing to defend the decision. No wonder—[Interruption.] The Chancellor yesterday sent out the Economic Secretary to do all the interviews on the issue. It is no wonder the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) said this:
	“I…didn’t see Newsnight, however, if Osborne sent Chloe on…he is a coward as well as a arrogant.”
	So there is no change on the tax cut for millionaires. Does not the Prime Minister realise that what people hate about this Government is the double standards when they say that tax avoidance is immoral but it is okay, when so many people are struggling to get by, to give a tax cut to millionaires, including the millionaires in the Cabinet?

David Cameron: The Leader of the Opposition says that the Chancellor was hiding away. The Chancellor was announcing the tax reduction from the Dispatch Box. I know that the House of Commons does not always get reported, but my right hon. Friend was here making the announcement and, I have to say, completely wrong-footing the shadow Chancellor. What we have heard today from the Leader of the Opposition is a whole series of arguments about process—process about the House of Lords, where he is wrong on the substance; process about the economy, where he is wrong on the substance; process about the deficit, when he wants to put the borrowing up. Absolutely hopeless.

Edward Miliband: This is about an economic plan that is failing, and it is about the unfairness of this Government. The Prime Minister talks about the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr, but he is giving a tax cut to millionaires of £40,000 a year across this country, including in his own Cabinet. When it comes to tax, it is obviously one rule for the comedians on the stage and another rule for the comedians in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister has spent the past week blundering into the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr, his Budget unravelling, his economic plan failing. From the country’s point of view, it is a shambles. From his point of view, it is just another week at the office.

David Cameron: I am not surprised—

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister’s answer will be heard.

David Cameron: I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is touchy about the issue of tax avoidance, because who have they just voted to the top of the list of the national executive committee? Ken Livingstone. It is this Government who are cracking down on aggressive and illegal tax avoidance and tax evasion, and it is the Opposition who are voting for them.

Malcolm Bruce: The International Development Committee spent last week in Afghanistan and would pay tribute to the dedication of our armed forces and civil servants working under very difficult conditions. At the Tokyo conference next month, will the Prime Minister reassure the people of Afghanistan that although troop drawdown will end in 2014, advice, support and development assistance will continue for years beyond that, so Afghanistan can become a functioning state that delivers for its people?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He talks about our armed services, and today is the day that we encourage people who serve to wear their uniform to work—not something that Members of this House can do, but none the less we should remember all those who serve our country, whether in the reserves or the regular forces.
	On the issue of support for Afghanistan, we have already announced that we will continue with the generous level of aid and development support that we are giving to Afghanistan after 2015—we have very much been leading the charge on that—as well as helping to fund the build-up of the Afghan national security forces between now and 2015.

Sharon Hodgson: What is the moral difference between celebrities avoiding tax and a Cabinet of millionaires cutting tax to benefit themselves?

David Cameron: Perhaps the best way to answer that question is to quote the hon. Lady’s own leader, who at the launch of his local election campaign said:
	“Tax avoidance is a terrible thing. It must be cracked down on.”
	That, I thought, was the official position of the Labour party. It should be thanking us for getting on and doing just that.

Caroline Dinenage: In welcoming the decision not to increase fuel duty, does the Prime Minister think that this shows hard-pressed families and businesses that we mean business about refuelling growth?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is this Government who have taken 2 million of the lowest paid people out of income tax, frozen the council tax, got rid of Labour’s job tax and repeatedly dealt with fuel duty, so it is 10p less than it would be under the plans left to us by the last Labour Government.

Grahame Morris: Can we return to the theme of practicalities and tax avoidance? One way in which the Prime Minister could put an end to aggressive tax avoidance schemes is to legislate for a general anti-avoidance principle, not a general rule. Will he make one more U-turn and back
	up his expression of public outrage with real action and legislate for a general anti-avoidance principle?

David Cameron: Legislating on a general anti-avoidance rule is exactly what we are doing, exactly what Labour did not do for 13 years, and I look forward to welcoming the hon. Gentleman into our Division Lobby.

Mary Macleod: Unemployment in my constituency has reduced by 5.7% in the last year as a result of this Government’s work to reduce unemployment and make sure that we are focusing on the right things to deliver economic growth, unlike the Opposition who have no innovate solution to the economic issue. [ Interruption. ] What part of additional growth will come from new businesses? [ Interruption. ]What are the Government doing to encourage teaching enterprise in schools to nurture the next generation of entrepreneurs?

David Cameron: It is quite clear that the Opposition just want to shout down anyone who wants to talk up what is happening in our economy. In the last quarter we saw 200,000 new private sector jobs, which was more than four times the rate of growth that we saw in terms of the decline in the public sector. We are seeing a rebalancing of our economy, and 2011 was a record year for the creation of new small businesses in our country, and on this side of the House at least we are in favour of encouraging that.

Michael Meacher: The coalition agreement stated that the Government would introduce a House business committee by the third year of this Parliament. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm to the House that he will introduce it within the next 12 months?

David Cameron: We are looking carefully at this issue. Let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has served as a Minister and a Back-Bench MP, that this Government, by introducing the Back-Bench days and Back-Bench business, have already made one of the most fundamental reforms of this place. Back-Bench Members are able to determine both the time and subject of debate, something that never happened under 13 years of the Labour Government.

Gift Aid

Sarah Wollaston: What assessment he has made of the level of public awareness of gift aid declaration forms.

David Cameron: Gift aid is an important way of supporting charitable giving through the tax system. We know that charities can have difficulties collecting gift aid declarations, for example when collecting donations in the street. That is why we are introducing the gift aid small donations scheme, which will enable charities to claim a gift aid-style payment on donations when it has not been possible to collect a gift aid declaration. We think that will help charities in many parts of our country and, I am sure, will be welcome on both sides of the House.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Community hospitals across Britain benefit greatly from gift aid donations through their leagues of friends. Will he reassure all those who give so generously that the equipment and facilities they fund will be guaranteed to remain for the benefit of local health communities, and may I invite him to visit a community hospital in my constituency to see gift aid in action?

David Cameron: I have visited a community hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency while having a holiday there and so have some experience of the excellent service provided in south Devon. I absolutely can say that leagues of friends do a brilliant job across the country and the money they provide for that equipment should remain local. I think that the gift aid change we have announced will be able to help hospitals and leagues of friends such as the one she refers to.

Engagements

John Woodcock: The Prime Minister has not had time to reach a judgment on the tax affairs of Gary Barlow—he is a busy man—but he has had years to consider those of massive Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft. Are they morally wrong, like Jimmy Carr?

David Cameron: Like all Members of both Houses of Parliament, all peers have to be full UK taxpayers. That is a change I fully support. While we are on this subject, the hon. Gentleman might want to have a little look at Labour’s chief fundraiser, a man called Andrew Rosenfeld. Between the years of 2006 and 2011 he lived in which key marginal seat? Anyone? Zurich.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman deserves to be heard. There has been far too much noise today when Members have been asking their questions. It is discourteous. Let us hear Mr Bernard Jenkin.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House that there is a crucial EU summit at the end of this week? Which is more important for UK growth and jobs: the implications of the massive changes being proposed in the EU or House of Lords reform?

David Cameron: Clearly, in terms of growth in the UK economy, what is happening in the eurozone and in Europe is extremely important, and it is a very vital summit that is taking place this Thursday and Friday. The UK Government have a very clear view: the eurozone countries need to do more in the short term to settle the financial instability in the markets, but they also need to take medium and longer-term steps to make sense of the eurozone. That will involve them sharing greater powers, but that is something the UK should not be involved in. I think that we have a very clear view: we push forward our arguments with great vigour and we protect and defend the UK economy and political system at the same time.

Chris Bryant: Every hour of every day somebody is killed by a weapon that has been irresponsibly traded from one country to another. Next week the arms trade treaty negotiations start in New York. Will the Prime Minister make sure and guarantee that the British delegation fights for the inclusion in the treaty of not only police and security apparatus that can be used for internal repression, but ammunition, which is vital? It is bullets that kill.

David Cameron: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we back the arms trade treaty, as we have done for a considerable amount of time, and lobby very vigorously on that issue. On the specific point he raises, I will look at it and write to him.

Jake Berry: On Friday night, the towns of Bacup, Crawshawbooth and Darwen were subject to unprecedented flooding when the River Irwell and the River Darwen burst their banks at the same time. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the emergency services on working through the night and, in particular, the residents of Crawshawbooth, who came out in the morning to clean up their village so that it was able to welcome the Olympic torch less than 12 hours later?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising the emergency services. These were really very dangerous and damaging floods, caused by a huge amount of rainfall over a very short period. The emergency services performed superbly, and I hope to go and see that for myself, but now we are in the recovery phase and the phase when people start to look at going back into their homes. There will be all sorts of questions about insurance and about how we can help, and I am sure that he will make those arguments in the House and that the Government will do all they can to help.

Iain McKenzie: Will the Prime Minister finally answer the question why this year to date this Government have actually borrowed £3.9 billion more than they had by this time last year?

David Cameron: The deficit, which the hon. Gentleman and his party left, is down by a quarter, and the policy that he supports is to spend more, to borrow more and to put the debt up even further.

Nick de Bois: Seventeen-year-old Godwin Lawson, from Enfield, was tragically stabbed to death in 2010. Since then his mother, Yvonne, has become a powerful force for challenging the culture of knife crime, by sharing her experiences of her son’s death with young people in schools. She, like many groups on the front line of knife crime, can make an extraordinary contribution to challenging that culture, but some authorities are not yet getting behind them by supporting and offering funding to achieve that aim. Will the Prime Minister lend his support and encouragement to those people and to the councils to get behind them?

David Cameron: I will certainly give my support to Yvonne Lawson and to all those who are playing such a heroic role in trying to change the culture of knife crime and of carrying knives in our country. It is
	worth remembering that this year, for instance, Ben Kinsella would have been 21, and I pay tribute to Brooke Kinsella and to all such family members. It would in many ways be easier for them to try to turn away from the tragedy that robbed them of their children, their brothers and their sisters, but instead they campaign and show immense bravery, raising the profile of the issue. The Government must play their part by making sure that there are tough mandatory sentences, and we are and have done that, but a larger culture change needs to take place, and the bravery of those who have lost loved ones—going into schools and talking about the dangers of carrying knives—can play a huge role in that.

Debbie Abrahams: The Prime Minister will be aware of the horrific explosion that occurred in Shaw in my constituency yesterday. I am sure the whole House will want to pay tribute to, and mourn the death of, two-year-old Jamie Heaton and to send its best wishes to burns victim, Andy Partington. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the emergency services that attended the event yesterday, work that I witnessed first hand, as well as to Oldham council’s civil contingency service and to the Red Cross? Does he agree that we must never take for granted the courage and bravery of those servicemen and women?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to speak as she does, and I am sure the whole House will want to send a message of sympathy and condolences to the family of that poor two-year-old, who lost his life, and also our best wishes to the burns victim who is in hospital being treated at the moment. The scenes of what had happened as a result of that explosion were really quite appalling to see on our televisions, and I certainly join her in paying tribute to the emergency services. I also wish all speed to the police in getting to the bottom of anything that might have happened or gone on. Everyone will require answers to what has been an absolute tragedy.

Craig Whittaker: The Calder Valley flood victims Facebook page and the Community Foundation for Calderdale JustGiving page show great community spirit, and the fact that the arts festival, Mytholmroyd gala and handmade parade are all going ahead this week shows the community’s resilience and, also, that the Calder Valley is open for businesses. Can my right hon. Friend update our flooded communities on how negotiations are going with the insurance industry, so that they can get insurance in the future and at a reasonable price?

David Cameron: I quite understand why my hon. Friend wants to raise that issue. I believe that more than 550 properties in his constituency alone were affected by these really damaging and dangerous floods. On flood insurance, we are going to work very hard with the industry to continue to deliver widely available and affordable household insurance in flood-risk areas. I absolutely join him in praising the resilience of his community, having suffered as my constituency suffered in 2007. Although the recovery from floods is extremely difficult, the resilience of our communities and the amount of public and community service that comes out of them is remarkable and deserves our praise.

Frank Roy: Twenty years ago this week, the giant Ravenscraig steelworks in my constituency was forced to close. Thousands of steelmaking jobs were lost, and sadly many of my former steelworking colleagues never found work again. Twenty years on, will the Prime Minister apologise for his party’s shameful role in the demise of the Scottish steel industry?

David Cameron: I am sorry for every job that has been lost in manufacturing industry over a very long period of time. I would say, though, that while manufacturing as a share of the economy almost halved under the previous Government, that share is now increasing. It is worth recognising that under this Government the steel industry has started up again on Teesside, and that is something that the whole House should applaud.

Jesse Norman: Hereford is the home of the SAS, and 19 July will be the 40th anniversary of the battle of Mirbat, in which nine SAS soldiers fought off more than 300 heavily armed guerrillas. During the battle, Sergeant Talaiasi Labalaba was shot while single-handedly operating a 25 lb field gun—a weapon designed for a six-man team. Successive Governments have declined to recognise the extraordinary nature of his sacrifice. The SAS has many heroes, but will the Prime Minister finally put this matter to rest and give his support to the campaign to award Sergeant Labalaba the posthumous Victoria Cross that he so clearly earned?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to speak up for the SAS, which, as he says, is based in his constituency, and the extraordinary fight that those soldiers had in Oman all those years ago. We are not allowed to speak a lot on the record about what they do, but it is worth putting on the record the immense gratitude of all Governments and, I think, the entire British people for the risks they take on our behalf. Thinking of the recent hostage rescue, I would like to do that personally. Regarding my hon. Friend’s question, these sorts of decisions are not for politicians to make, but let me once again pay tribute to the heroic actions of that man and everyone involved on that day.

Liz Kendall: Is the Prime Minister bringing back O-levels and CSE-style exams?

David Cameron: What my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary explained in great detail in yesterday’s debate is that we want to have in our country an absolute gold standard of exams that are about rigour and high standards. The tragedy is that we inherited from the previous Government a system that was being progressively dumbed down, where Britain was falling down the league tables and GCSE questions included things such as, “How do you see the moon—is it through a telescope or a microscope?” Government Members think we need a rigorous system, and that is what we are going to put in place.

Andrew George: The exciting Goonhilly space science and technology park in my constituency richly deserves the conditional regional growth fund approval that will secure vital
	jobs and inward international investment into the UK, and will harmonise with the Government’s welcome and crucial commitment to space sector growth. Will the Prime Minister please use his influence to ensure that there is no—I am sorry to say—further avoidable delay in the implementation of the RGF grant and the launch of this vitally important enterprise?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. Almost 60% of regional growth fund projects are now under way, and the money has been distributed in very many cases, but I will look specifically at this project, which does sound interesting and worth while. As I understand it, it involves radio astronomy and satellite management. It will bring to Cornwall high-tech jobs that it wants and needs, so I will do my best to make sure it happens.

Clive Efford: A third of south-east London health care trusts’ deficit is due to the private finance initiative. Is not the Secretary of State for Health wrong to suggest that the entire deficit is due to the PFI? Should he not be working with local health managers to deal with the situation rather than imposing an outside administrator to cut local health services?

David Cameron: First, it is this Government who are putting more money into the NHS this year, next year, and the year after. Some of these NHS trusts, such as the one the hon. Gentleman mentions, do have enormous deficits, and a large part of that is down to the completely failed PFI systems that the previous Government put in place. In hospitals up and down the country, it costs £120 to reset an alarm, £466 to replace a light fitting—[ Interruption. ] Labour Members are shouting from a sedentary position that these were Conservative PFIs. They were not—every single one of them was put in place under a Labour Government. Yet again, time for an apology.

Mark Reckless: Does the Prime Minister agree that the way to tackle aggressive tax avoidance is to bring in flatter, fairer taxes?

David Cameron: I certainly support flatter, fairer taxes. That is why we have taken 2 million people out of income tax and why we have a lower top rate of tax to make us competitive with the rest of the world. It is
	important to put it clearly on the record that tax evasion is illegal and wrong, and should be chased down, and that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, some of the tax avoidance schemes that have been put in place in recent years are very questionable. The Government should be absolutely clear that the Revenue’s task is to close those schemes down and to ensure that people pay their taxes properly.

Caroline Lucas: In December last year, this House passed a motion calling for a Bill to make urgent reforms to our deeply unfair extradition treaties. Nearly seven months later, there has been no Bill and no action. What makes the Prime Minister more uncomfortable: ignoring the will of the House for months on end or the plight of those facing imminent extradition?

David Cameron: We held the Scott Baker review, which looked carefully at the extradition arrangements. The hon. Lady should of course look at some of the cases that have caused concern, but I urge her to look also at the overall figures, which show that we are benefiting by being able to extradite people who have committed serious crimes from the US back to the UK. We continue to look at this issue. We will ensure that we do the right thing for our country, but people should not think that it is a very simple issue, because it is not.

Peter Bone: Will the Prime Minister congratulate the excellent Secretary of State for International Development on producing a flag that will replace the European Union logo on all our overseas aid? He should be thoroughly congratulated.

David Cameron: I am sure that, like myself, my hon. Friend—and probably Mrs Bone as well—got the “Dear colleague” letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with his excellent new logo. It shows that the aid that we send is provided not on behalf of the British Government, but on behalf of all British people, who I think support the fact that Britain stands for something in the world: we stand for helping the poorest in our world, even as we have a difficult time in our own country.

Points of Order

Toby Perkins: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. CCS Media in my constituency is a major supplier to South London Healthcare NHS Trust. It contacted me yesterday to try to get assurances that its bills will still be paid in the light of the recent unpleasant news. I have had a letter back from the Department of Health that offers no such assurance and states that the Department is discussing the point with lawyers. It is fundamental that the companies that supply the NHS trust know that they will be paid for the services they provide. Has Mr Speaker been notified of any intention to make a statement so that companies can be reassured that they will be paid for the services they provide to the NHS?

Lindsay Hoyle: No notice of such a statement has been given to the Chair. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the other part of his question was not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he had to say.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the Prime Minister would not want to mislead the House. Will you tell me how I might put on record the fact that the private finance initiative for Queen Elizabeth hospital in south-east London was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community on 1 March 1995 under the previous Conservative Government?

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. We are obviously not going to open up that point again.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I notice that in the presentation of Bills, the first Bill relates to their lordships’ House. I note that in some of the earlier editions of “Erskine May”, it is deemed proper that Bills relating to another place should be presented there first as a matter of courtesy. I wonder whether you would guide us as to why that courtesy is not being observed, when it was abandoned, and whether Her Majesty’s Government might wish to have better manners in future.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, we both have an interest in next door. However, the hon. Gentleman did state that he was referring to “earlier editions”. We have since moved on.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a matter of courtesy, and I would have thought that courtesy was timeless. The fact that it has been omitted from subsequent editions does not mean that it is no longer important.

Lindsay Hoyle: Courtesy has been expressed, as we all know, but as we said earlier, “Erskine May” has moved on, and it is time for the House to move on.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	House of Lords Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Secretary Michael Moore, Danny Alexander, Sir George Young and Mr Mark Harper, presented a Bill to make provision about the membership of the House of Lords; to make provision about the disclaimer of life peerages; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to peerage claims; to make other provision relating to peerage; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 52) with explanatory notes (Bill 52-EN).

Recall of Elected Representatives Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Zac Goldsmith presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their elected representatives in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 50).

European Union Act 2011 (amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr William Cash, supported by Mr John Redwood, Mr Bernard Jenkin, Mr John Whittingdale, Mr Greg Knight, Mr Graham Stuart, Mr John Baron, Mr Richard Shepherd, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mr Peter Bone, Chris Heaton-Harris and Zac Goldsmith, presented a Bill to apply the terms of the European Union Act 2011 such as to require approval by Act of Parliament and by referendum of provisions for creating a fiscal union or economic governance within the Eurozone.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July, and to be printed (Bill 53).

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

[ Relevant documents: the Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2010-12, on Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, Health Committee 1463, and the Government’s response, Cm 8245. ]

[3rd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Clauses 10 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Schedule 4
	 — 
	Amendments to do with part 1

Wayne David: I beg to move amendment 39,page21,line23, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 35,page21,line23, leave out—
	‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.
	The amendment makes registration officers subject to the test of taking ‘all steps that are necessary’ under section 9A of the 1983 Act, in respect of their new duty: ‘securing that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register (and no others) are registered in it’.
	Amendment 37,page21,line26, at end insert—
	‘(4) In subsection (2), after paragraph (e), insert—
	“(f) reporting to the police any suspicion he might have that an offence had been committed relevant to the integrity of registration and absent vote applications.”.’.
	Amendment 40,page21,line26, at end insert—
	‘(4) At the end of subsection (3) insert—
	(4) If the Electoral Commission judges that registration officers have not taken all necessary steps as outlined in this section, the Electoral Commission shall have the power to intervene.”.’.

Wayne David: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.
	The Opposition have tabled the amendments because we are concerned about the schedule. Like the Electoral Commission, we are concerned about the watering down of the responsibilities of electoral registration officers. We think it is important that the Bill clearly defines the role of EROs in individual electoral registration and afterwards.
	Amendment 37 seeks to redress what the Opposition see as a deficiency in the law—there is a lack of powers vested in EROs to detect and investigate electoral fraud, so allegations of offences under electoral law should be made to the police. That leaves a large gap in the powers of EROs. The amendment would, for the first time, place a duty on EROs to report to the police any suspicions that an offence might have been committed.
	That is important. The Government have said time and again—incorrectly—that the Opposition are concerned about completeness and nothing else. We are concerned
	about completeness, but we are also concerned about the accuracy of electoral registers. The surest way to detect and act upon alleged fraud is for the individuals responsible for the administration of the process of registration to have a power vested in them—a duty upon them—to say that they are concerned about something. If they, as the experts, are concerned, they would have a duty to pass that information directly to the police, who would then act. We think, then, that the amendment addresses a gap in the current legislation and the Bill.

Keith Vaz: I support the amendment. Locally, EROs might be faced with competing local interests and not wish to offend a particular group, which is why this is extremely important. If there is a duty on them, they will have to act when allegations are made or serious offences committed. If they do not have a duty, they will tend to want to retain the status quo in order not to upset anybody.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. In a sense, the amendment would remove the discretion that EROs might feel they have and which often places them in an invidious position. As I have said, it is important not to exaggerate the occurrence of fraud, but if EROs have genuine concerns, they should have a duty to pass that information on to the police.

David Wright: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said. This matter is incredibly important at a time of resource restraint in local authorities. When resources are tight, there is always a tendency to defer decisions, but if EROs were required to act under the legislation, they would have to do so, and would be unable to cite resource difficulties as an excuse for not taking action.

Wayne David: Yes, that is another good point. We all recognise that cash is short for local authorities. Indeed, we have highlighted during the passage of the Bill our particular concern that local authorities might not place the necessary emphasis on the registration process because of competing financial demands from other departments, which further reinforces my point that it is reasonable to place this statutory responsibility on EROs. Were they, in the course of their work, to come across a matter of genuine concern, they would not have to make a subjective decision about whether the matter was worth pursuing, but instead, if it was a serious concern, would have to pass it directly to the police, who would then investigate and consider the appropriate action to take.
	Amendment 39 seeks to address the Electoral Commission’s concern that schedule 4 waters down the provisions in the Representation of the People Act 1983 requiring EROs to take all necessary steps in carrying out their duties. We are particularly concerned about door-to-door canvassing. As our debate the other day highlighted, this is an important area. We can talk about the introduction of new technology, which is to be welcomed, and about the importance of providing accurate literature and regular mailings, but, at the end of the day, the door-to-door canvass is vital and an essential part of the armoury of individual EROs in moving towards as complete a register as possible.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) will speak to his amendment 35, but I would say in passing that we have a lot of sympathy with the point behind it and, I am sure, the other points he will make in a moment.
	Amendment 40 relates to amendment 39 and aims to give effect to our request to give the Electoral Commission the power to intervene where EROs are not performing to a sufficiently high standard. This is an important amendment because it is vital that best practice be promoted, enhanced, defended and maintained whenever possible.
	We all know that with a new system like this one, there will be tremendous pressures on EROs. That is why we said in Monday’s debate that the issue of funding was so important—not just for providing new equipment and facilities, but for training as well, so that EROs have the skills and competence necessary to achieve the best standards. We also think it important to ensure that the Electoral Commission has a specific role to make sure that those standards are maintained.

Keith Vaz: I again endorse again what my hon. Friend says, as we all have experience of turning up to counts and meeting electoral registration officers and others involved in the process, some of whom, to be perfectly frank, do not have the training and experience to deal with these situations. Amendment 40 would not only enable the sharing of good practice, but would ensure that if people are perhaps not doing their jobs as effectively as they could, the commission would at least have the power to try to put things right.

Wayne David: Yes, my colleague makes a very astute point borne out of his own experience. All of us who have been involved in democratic politics for a number of years can testify to that. The standard of EROs’ work varies enormously, so we need to ensure that everything possible is done to secure higher standards to reinforce the democratic process. Giving the Electoral Commission a key role and a key power in this respect will be important both for building up confidence and for ensuring that the system is as effective as possible.

Andrew Love: Is it not the case that the Electoral Commission already has the right to evaluate how well electoral registration officers are carrying out their duties, but that it is not allowed as of today to intervene where poor practice is standard? The amendment would deal with that problem and give the Electoral Commission the opportunity to put right what they can see as going very wrong.

Wayne David: That is indeed correct. We have expressed on a number of occasions in Committee our worry that the Government do not recognise the important role that the Electoral Commission must have in a number of important respects. There is a weakness in the legislation as drafted, particularly regarding the role of EROs. This amendment is designed to plug that gap and make sure that the absolutely central role that the Electoral Commission has to play is built directly into the Bill, particularly in respect of the standards we believe it necessary for EROs to achieve in the furtherance of their duties.

Mark Williams: I shall address my brief remarks to my amendment 35. It is a probing amendment, whose purpose is to raise and discuss concerns that have already been expressed about the duties of electoral registration officers. A constant theme running through all our Committee discussions so far has been the capacity of EROs to deliver their duties responsibly and effectively to ensure both the accuracy and completeness of the electoral list.
	On Monday, we discussed the different approaches taken by local authorities and the need for some measure of standardisation—in the invitations sent out to encourage people to register, for instance. Local authorities have acted in different ways, but it is important to maintain the obligation on all EROs across the country to get everyone entitled to register to do so. I think all parties are agreed on that objective, but there has been some concern that the Bill as it stands will not achieve it. The Electoral Commission, among others, is concerned that schedule 4 will “dilute”—its word—the current responsibilities and requirements of EROs. That is particularly worrying given the findings of the Electoral Commission’s “Report on performance of Electoral Registration Officers” in Great Britain, published in June 2012. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), it expressed particular concern about the issue of house-to-house inquiries, stating:
	“ Currently, section 9A(1) requires an ERO to take ‘all steps that are necessary for the purpose of complying with his duty to maintain the register under section 9’.
	Section 9A contains a list of non-exhaustive steps which include, on occasions, making more than one visit through house-to-house inquiries.
	The Electoral Commission feels that the duty in its current form works well and is an important tool in ensuring that EROs do all the work that is necessary to guarantee accuracy and completeness, including the conducting of house-to-house inquiries when, critically, other methods—we have heard a great deal about, for instance, data-matching pilots and aspirations for online voting—have not yielded the appropriate information. The commission remains baffled by why the Government would want to change the present arrangement.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case—so powerful, indeed, that we hope that he will press the amendment to a vote, but if he does not do so, we will.

David Heath: After the Committee has heard my reply.

Mark Williams: As my hon. Friend says, we must hear what he has to say on the subject first. His intervention is timely, as I am now moved to speculate on what he may say.
	Schedule 4(6) adds to section 9A the words
	“and for the purpose of securing that, so far as is reasonably practicable, persons who are entitled to be registered in a register (and no others) are registered in it”.
	I know that the Government are content with that, feeling that it strengthens the responsibilities that EROs already have, but what risk, I ask my hon. Friend, does
	the change pose to the accuracy and completeness of the register? I feel that my amendment 35, which deletes the phrase
	“so far as is reasonably practical”,
	buttresses the obligation of EROs to secure persons who are entitled to be included in the register.
	Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly—for he is my friend—that mine is a probing amendment, and that, as I said at the outset, I am seeking to clarify these matters for the benefit of those of us who have discussed their concerns with the Electoral Commission. Certainly there is no good reason to reduce the duty imposed on EROs, and, if anything—given the tone of our debate and the cross-party aspiration that has been expressed—we should be enhancing and strengthening it. I should be grateful if the Minister explained the reasoning behind the changes in the Bill, and how they would affect EROs’ current obligations.
	It seems to me that the Bill in its current form has the potential to weaken the principle of maximising registration, which would undermine what the Government are attempting to do. I do not believe for a moment that that is their intention, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
	We have heard from other Members about the expectations that we have of EROs, and the performance standards that are used to assess their role. Let me refer again to the Electoral Commission’s report. Performance standard 3 refers to
	“house-to-house enquiries to ensure that all eligible residents are registered.”
	Although the Electoral Commission observed that progress had been made—
	“the number of EROs who reported meeting or exceeding this standard increased between 2008 and 2010”—
	eight EROs did not meet the standard. The commission stated that it had been able to contact them and remind them of their responsibility to “take all necessary steps”. It also stated that in 2011, for a range of reasons, it had heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that a greater number of EROs might not have met the standard in that year, and might not have taken “all necessary steps”. That prompted it to do some research. It contacted EROs and asked them whether they had carried out a personal canvass of all non-responders, and 58 replied citing budgetary restraints and rurality.
	There is clearly continuing concern about house-to-house inquiries. The Electoral Commission is worried enough about the present set-up and the present wording of the legislation, but it fears that the position could worsen as a result of the new wording.

Stewart Jackson: It is obvious from the attendance in the Chamber that the issues we are discussing are hardly setting the heather alight, but they are nevertheless important in the context of the relationship between central and local government. I think that Members in all parts of the Committee agree that there has been substantial consultation on the Bill, and that many key stakeholders—not least the Electoral Commission—have had an opportunity to draw on real-life experience for their prognostications and recommendations. However, I think that the amendments
	tabled by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) risk changing a permissive, directional approach from the centre to the Electoral Commission vis-à-vis electoral returning officers to a much more oppressive approach, which would not take into consideration the differences that exist throughout the country in districts, boroughs and cities.
	I think that had the Government not taken account of the experience of May 2010—for instance, the performance of EROs at polling stations and the administrative arrangements that caused difficulties in areas such as Sheffield and Hackney—it would have been fair to comment on their performance with regard to registration. However, the Bill does take account of that experience, not least in clause 17, which refers to the
	“Inadequate performance of returning officer”.
	One of the problems of being too prescriptive and draconian, and including in legislation what is effectively a direction to EROs, is that it fetters their discretion and allows central Government, through the Cabinet Office, to instruct them to do things that may not be appropriate in their areas. The data-matching projects are a good example. In my constituency, there were high levels of registration during our pilot project for the Electoral Commission because there was a very thorough door-to-door canvass. However, it should be borne in mind that the actual matching to the DWP and other databases was only 54% in Peterborough, and that it may be significantly higher in other parts of the country.
	I think that it would be wrong to instruct electoral registration officers, who are typically chief executives or borough, city or district solicitors, that the fall-back position should be that they are not doing their job properly and not adhering to the existing legislation. The Bill in its present form recognises that it is imperative to maximise the number of people on the electoral register—and we all welcome that because we believe that it is important to democracy and future civic engagement—while also giving discretion to individuals at local level.

Andrew Love: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is it not important for the Electoral Commission, which will carry out these functions, to be both an independent body and a great repository of expertise in these areas? If that were the case, it would take into account local circumstances, and it would not act in a draconian manner.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Electoral Commission commissioners, but we are in danger of overlooking two key facts. One is that EROs are ultimately responsible to those who are locally elected to direct their work and to have oversight of their effectiveness in their role—the leader of the council, perhaps, or the cabinet or the appropriate committees. That explains the importance of clause 17. Secondly, as ever in politics and governance, if we do not attach a price tag, it is likely that we will not get the desired end.
	The measures in these amendments would be resource-intensive and would impact directly on the other local authority budgets. Ultimately, it is for the local authorities,
	and EROs guided by elected members, to make the value judgments that they see fit in regard to registration. They will clearly want to perform as well as neighbouring boroughs, districts and cities, and their performance will be compared on a nationwide basis by the Electoral Commission. My objection to this aspect of these amendments is that it would be unnecessarily draconian for the legislation to direct in a catch-all way. The current system is right in this respect.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that where the Electoral Commission feels an ERO has done the job effectively but is resource-constrained, it would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission and the ERO to refer that to the political leadership of their borough for proper discussion?

Stewart Jackson: I agree, but there are existing checks and balances if the system does not work. I referred earlier to the situation in Sheffield, and in particular Sheffield, Hallam, the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency. That was not just swept under the carpet. That was a very serious issue of people feeling they had not had the opportunity to take part in a vote and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it resulted in a full, open, transparent inquiry by the Electoral Commission, and lessons have been learned. There is room for discretion within a permissive approach, but the amendments do not propose that.
	I am always slightly wary of dismissing legislation that says, as schedule 4 does,
	“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
	That is the language of consensus, reality and pragmatism—the language of a practical approach. To disregard that and be overly-prescriptive would be a mistake. For that reason, if this amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall vote with the Government. I hope the Minister makes it clear that this amendment is unnecessary and the Bill’s current wording is appropriate.

David Heath: It is a pleasure to return to this Bill under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for their amendments and the manner in which they discussed them. However, the hon. Gentleman’s revealing that he intends to vote for his amendment irrespective of my response does not give me a great incentive to try to persuade him—but my hon. Friend has a more open mind, and I know will listen carefully to what I have to say.

Wayne David: I have to say that I have made an assumption on the basis of what has happened so far with this Bill. I very much hope the hon. Gentleman proves me wrong, but I do not think he will.

David Heath: And on the basis of the way we have conducted our business in this Committee so far, I have also made an assumption about the hon. Gentleman. Let us leave it at that.
	On amendments 39 and 35, it will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion to learn that I shall repeat what the Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), said in an earlier
	debate on this measure: far from diluting the requirements on registration officers, under the new registration system we are strengthening the existing duties.
	This Bill amends the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I accept that it can be a little difficult to follow how one qualifies, and relates to, the other. I shall try to explain that, therefore. The Bill sets out new requirements on registration officers, amending the previous legislation. My audience’s eyes will glaze over if I mention too many related sections, but one of the duties under section 9A of the 1983 Act is that the register must contain those who appear to the registration officer to be entitled to be registered. That presents a problem under the new system, because we do not want registration officers to confine their efforts simply to those who appear to be entitled to be registered; we want them to go out and seek out people, because we want the register to be complete. The duties are now expanded, therefore, so the registration officer has to go out and find people who are not on the register, and of whom he is not aware, and then include them on it. Therefore, a different process is engaged. At present, the provision in question also ignores the fact that there must be an application for registration before a person is added to the register. It is a key point that, at the application stage, the electors will be verified.
	Those two important parts of the new system must be included in the new legislation, which is why the Bill amends section 9 to ensure that the description of the register in respect of individual registration is accurate. The register is to contain only those people who are “entitled” and have been through the application system. It also amends section 9A to make it clear that registration officers must do more than just take the specific steps laid out in the legislation in a tick-box manner and include in the register those people who made an application. Those requirements will remain, and must be fulfilled, without exception, but the Bill adds an express general duty to take all other
	“necessary steps…so far as is reasonably practicable”
	to compile as complete and accurate a register as possible.
	The qualification of “reasonably practicable” applies to the standard of completeness and accuracy of the register that must be reached. It must be as complete and accurate as is “reasonably practicable”, which is a very high level, but there is an acceptance of the fact that no register will be absolutely perfect. It would not be right to set out in legislation a requirement for registration officers to achieve an unreasonable or impracticable level of completeness. However, the steps the ERO must take are not qualified. EROs must take all the necessary steps to achieve a register. That is not qualified as being steps that are “reasonably practicable”; they must take all the necessary steps to provide a register that is as complete and as accurate “as is reasonably practicable”.

Andrew Love: I have a simple question for the Minister: would it be “reasonably practicable” not to carry out a door-to-door canvass where a significant number of electors were estimated not to be on the electoral register?

David Heath: No, it would not. The steps that an ERO needs to take will be set out both in the guidance from the Electoral Commission and in the secondary legislation. Those steps will be a duty upon them; it will not be
	about doing this if they get round to it or if they feel it would be a good idea. There will be a basic level of steps that they must take. All we are doing with this “reasonably practicable” qualification is saying that, despite their best endeavours, EROs are not going to achieve a perfect register, because no one in any constituency in any country in the known world has ever produced a register that is absolutely accurate and perfect. However, EROs must do everything they can to make it is as near to that as possible by taking all reasonable steps.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister is making a strong case. Is not the corollary of these amendments that, if we disregard the practicability of the efforts by the EROs to put this register together, compiling a register would be exactly the same, and would be seen as such, in Colchester, a constituency made up of one town in a compact urban area, as it would be in Orkney and Shetland, a constituency of many islands? It simply is not practical to regard the constituencies as being the same for the purposes of compiling a register.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He sets out why we must avoid being too prescriptive: we want EROs to do a variety of different things in different places to achieve their objective.
	The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) asked whether there is a minimum that is required. I can tell him that there is. Our draft regulations will set out what the EROs must do to encourage applications to register to vote. That will include, as a minimum, the sending of an invitation, of two reminders and of a canvasser to encourage an application. There is no question of our watering down the duty of EROs; we are simply recognising that even at the end of all that, because of the change in the way in which this section is constructed by the amendment of the original Act, EROs will not have a perfect register. However, they must have as near to a perfect system as possible for getting to the perfect register.

Wayne David: With all due respect, what the Minister is saying is about as clear as mud. As I understand it, the Government are trying to say that this is merely a technical amendment. We are saying that the whole issue of a door-to-door canvass is extremely important, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? We should keep it as it is.

David Heath: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the point I am making, because I thought I had set it out clearly. I am not sure that I can find an alternative construction that might make it easier for the hard of understanding. What he asserts to be a dilution is not a dilution because it applies to a different process. The use of
	“so far as is reasonably practicable”
	is a qualification of the completeness of the register, not of the system the EROs use to get there, where they must take all the steps required, and others, in order to achieve an accurate and complete register. I think that that is sufficiently clear and that members of the Committee will feel it is sufficiently clear. However, as he stated that he was not going to be satisfied by my explanation even before I gave it, I am not entirely surprised that he finds that difficulty now.

Andrew Love: The Minister says that the things that the ERO will need to do will be set out in the regulations. Will those matters also be subject to the test to which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) referred—the financial wherewithal necessary to carry this out—or can that be judged under the criteria the Minister has just suggested?

David Heath: I am in danger of straying into a different part of the legislation here, because that requirement is already in place. One of the things that concern many of us is the difference in performance of some authorities in carrying out what is clearly their duty. The returning officer and the ERO have a statutory duty to carry out their duties effectively. If they are not given the resources by the local authority concerned, they must insist that they have those resources. There is also a back-up provision for the Electoral Commission to take a view on that and report the matter to the Government where there is a deficiency—so the apparatus is in place. Given the new responsibilities that EROs have and the transition funding that they will receive as part of the process of implementing this Bill, I hope that they will be a little more forthright in saying when they are being starved of funds. I must say that there is no direct correlation between the EROs who have more than adequate resources to do their job properly and those who do not, and the relative financial solvency or otherwise of the local authority; it is often a matter of political will as to whether this is seen as a priority.

Andrew Love: indicated  assent .

David Heath: I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that point.
	May I just deal with the other two issues raised in the amendments? Amendment 37 deals with the reporting of suspicions that an individual had committed offences relating to electoral fraud when submitting either a registration or absent vote application. Again, nobody would quarrel with the purpose of that. Perhaps I should say the “purported purpose”, as we never know exactly what the purpose of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly is because he does not provide an explanatory statement, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. I accept that the purported purpose is a good one.
	Let us be absolutely clear that there is a need for EROs to refer to the police any suspicions they have on registration and postal vote applications that they receive, and that is set out clearly in the guidance issued to them by the Electoral Commission. The hon. Member for Caerphilly will have looked at that, and he will know that paragraph 3.37 of the Electoral Commission’s “Managing electoral registration in Great Britain” guidance clearly states:
	“Any issues concerning the integrity of the registration process should be reported”—
	by the ERO—
	“to the police immediately.”
	In addition, the Electoral Commission has worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers to produce guidance for EROs, returning officers and police officers
	on identifying and responding to allegations of electoral fraud associated with the registration and postal voting process. In exercising powers under section 9A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission has also set out a specific performance standard on integrity—performance standard 4— which EROs need to meet on maintaining the integrity of registration and postal vote applications. In order to meet that performance standard, EROs are required to establish and maintain contact with their local police—a single point of contact—and ensure that any suspicions arising from registration and postal vote applications are reported to them immediately. EROs are already assessed on their compliance with that standard by the Electoral Commission, so putting in place this statutory requirement would be otiose in those circumstances. If the question is whether they are doing that, the Electoral Commission’s report is encouraging. EROs appear to be making significant progress in the completion of the integrity performance standard.
	The figures in the report on the performance of electoral registration officers in 2011 show that 260 EROs, or 68%, met the standard, whereas 116, or 31%, performed above it. Those who are mathematically gifted will work out that 68 plus 31 is 99, which leaves only 1% of EROs—only four—who did not meet the standard. Why not? They did not provide sufficient documentation to the Electoral Commission about the work they had done—they had done it—to take matters forward with the police. The Electoral Commission has give a strong bill of health to the steps taken by EROs of their own volition and with the support of local authorities, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said, to do the job with which they are entrusted and to report their suspicions.

Stewart Jackson: I concur warmly with the Minister. My experience of living through Operation Hooper, which was the postal vote fraud investigation in Cambridgeshire arising from the June 2004 local and European elections, puts that sharply into perspective. It is important that there should be no perverse incentive that means that electoral registration officers do not to take action because of the resource implications. Hooper cost the Cambridgeshire constabulary a huge amount of money, which has never been recouped by the constabulary or by the city of Peterborough, and the Minister should be mindful of that.

David Heath: I absolutely agree. There should be no constraint on dealing effectively with attempted or actual fraud in the electoral process. EROs should be confident not only that they have the capacity to act but that the police will engage with them. That is why the work between the Electoral Commission and ACPO is so important.

Wayne David: I hear what the Minister says about the reports produced by the Electoral Commission, but that is all in the past. We are talking about a transitional system and an entirely new system. Our contention is that EROs should have greater responsibilities to ensure that they take that aspect of their work very seriously and that there is a need for a stipulation to that effect on the face of the Bill.

David Heath: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Electoral Commission’s most recent report from 2011, which is really not that long ago, expresses the strong view that EROs understand their responsibilities in this area perfectly well. It is by no means clear that a statutory provision would make one jot of difference. From a jurisprudential point of view, I do not think it is very easy to establish that someone has failed to report a suspicion. If they have documented it, they are likely to report it, and if they have not I would like to see the process by which one could establish that a suspicion had formed in their mind.
	There are difficulties with the proposal from the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I do not think we are talking about a major difference of opinion. We simply think that the Electoral Commission has taken and will continue to take the necessary steps, that EROs are responding positively to that and that we have a much more satisfactory arrangement now than we would have had a few years ago. That is partly thanks to the work of the previous Government in introducing the provisions that gave the Electoral Commission the standard-setting duties it now has.
	Finally, let me deal with the proposal to give the Electoral Commission powers of intervention. The amendment is not clear. I do not want to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but it is a curious provision in an Act of Parliament to give a power of intervention without stating what that power is. The proposal raises a serious point about the role of the Electoral Commission. We think that the fulfilment of the requirements set out in section 9A of the 1983 Act plays a vital role in improving the completeness and accuracy of our electoral registers. We are committed to achieving that, but giving the Electoral Commission powers to intervene when that is not being done would be a significant change to how it operates. It already has powers to set and monitor performance standards for electoral services, which is what we have just been discussing, and it does it very well, measuring the performance of EROs against those criteria. A failure to meet those standards might suggest a potential failure to meet the duty set out in section 9A of the 1983 Act, which is absolutely right.

Andrew Love: Under the 2010 Act, the Electoral Commission was given a central role because of the critical importance of the introduction of individual electoral registration. Amendments have already been made to downgrade the role of the Electoral Commission. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that we need an independent body with expert witnesses in its membership to ensure a smooth transition to individual electoral registration?

David Heath: I absolutely agree. The Electoral Commission plays a hugely significant role and will continue to do so, setting out and monitoring the performance standards. It is also helping through its new responsibilities to ensure that EROs do their job. When there are concerns about the EROs’ performance as regards this duty or any other, the Electoral Commission has a power to intervene by making a recommendation to the Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council, who has a power of direction to require registration officers to comply with the directions on discharging their functions. It goes further, because in addition it is an offence for a registration officer to breach their official duty without
	good cause. If prosecuted and found guilty, a registration officer can be fined up to £5,000. I believe that that system has so far worked well as regards any registration officer who was found to be in dereliction of his duties. I cannot see any need to change that or for any specific provision to be made about the discharging of those duties under section 9A.
	We want the Electoral Commission to play a key role in monitoring how registration officers implement their policies, including their fulfilment of section 9A duties. The Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council would as a last resort retain the ability to issue formal directions to a registration officer if they were in breach of their legal responsibilities. I hope that those detailed explanations of the Government’s position mean that the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Wayne David: I heard what the Minister said. I was not entirely convinced by his arguments, but there was some reassurance on some points, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lindsay Hoyle: I understand, Mr Williams, that you do not wish to move amendment 35.

Mark Williams: indicated assent.

The Chairman: I call Wayne David.

Wayne David: As I indicated earlier, we feel that this is a very good amendment on an extremely important issue, so we would like to move it.
	Amendment proposed: 35,page21,line23, leave out ‘, so far as is reasonably practicable,’.—(Wayne David.)
	The Committee divided:

Ayes 188, Noes 266.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Timing of parish and community council elections in England and Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Wayne David: In principle, the provisions in clause 14 on the timing of parish and community council elections are sensible, but as the Minister knows, local government is devolved to Wales. What consultation on this point was carried out with the Welsh Government prior to the publication of the Bill?

David Heath: I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman by suggesting that I have personally made such contact, because I have not. That would have been a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is the Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform. However, throughout our work on the Bill, we have ensured that we have shared our intentions with all the devolved Administrations that will be subject to it. I will confirm to the hon. Gentleman what consultation was carried out with the Welsh authorities, but I am confident that that will have taken place, because it has happened with other aspects of the Bill. When possible, we have accommodated any points that the devolved Administrations have made.

Jonathan Edwards: The clause deals with the timing of local elections, but local authority elections are a matter for the National Assembly. Clearly, community council elections should also be a matter for the National Assembly, rather than being reserved to Westminster. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), will the Minister hold discussions with the Welsh Government on taking that idea forward? There is a Green Paper on future electoral arrangements for Wales, and perhaps the subsequent White Paper and legislation would be a vehicle to move that forward.

David Heath: I undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the Wales Office and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office. If progress can be made in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, that can certainly be considered.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Alteration of electoral registers: pending elections

Wayne David: I beg to move amendment 38, page9,line12,at end insert—
	‘(1A) In section 13(4), at end add “provided that the registration officer shall not make any such changes if an election specified in section 13B(4) is scheduled to take place within 30 days of publication of the revised version of the register.”.’.
	The amendment is small, but important. Clause 15 will amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide for two interim publication dates when an
	election is pending on which notices of alteration of the electoral register must be published. The intention behind amendment 38 is to counter electoral fraud.
	Unfortunately, if someone was so inclined, they would find it relatively straightforward to add a small number of electors to the register fraudulently over several months. The odds of such fraud being detected reduce in proportion to any reduction in the time available between the publication of the electoral register and an election. I am told that this was part of the problem in the 2007 Slough postal votes fraud. The chances of detection are also reduced if the electors added mid-year are new to the register, because the situation will not be apparent from the register itself.
	The police commissioner elections will take place in November, just a matter of days after the publication of a wholly new register. We are keen to ensure that that does not become a pattern, because it is not especially good practice. I say that not just on behalf of the Labour party, but for the benefit of all political parties, because we all have the role of engaging with the democratic process and making a case to secure votes in elections. Such a situation does not give time for parties’ local activists to detect suspicious new registrations through the numbering system employed by electoral registration officers.
	While this might be a small issue in the scheme of things, we are making an important practical point from the perspective of not only the organisation of political parties, but the detection of fraud. We are especially concerned to avoid a repeat of what happened in Slough in 2007.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this sensible point. We all agree that, when possible, registers should be in place for a significant time prior to the elections to which they relate. I do not want to revisit the police commissioner elections, because I think that he will accept that they are an exceptional case.
	The hon. Gentleman has set out an option for what could be done, but his proposal would create practical difficulties. Indeed, the problems are of such a scale that they might involve additional expense. While that would not be the end of the world if the proposal meant that fraud would be detected more effectively, the amendment would also create the possibility of confusion.
	I understand that the amendment would provide that electors remaining on the register following a canvass would retain their existing electoral number if an election took place within 30 days of the register’s publication. However, I am not clear about what would happen if electors were removed from the register following the annual canvass. If the intention is that the numbers for those electors would not be used on the new register, there would be gaps in the number sequence for electors, unless those gaps were filled with new electors, which would create a strange and rather jumbled numbering process. It might mean a different numbering system for new electors. Far from getting rid of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman correctly identifies as a risk, it might introduce new risks into the process if the system made it difficult for the parties, the electoral registration officers and the IT systems to cope.
	The further issue—this is not to belittle the hon. Gentleman’s amendment—is at what point the renumbering should begin. The amendment is silent on when would be the appropriate time to renumber consecutively. If we wait until the next revised register, the same circumstances might apply, and there might be a significantly longer period during which no renumbering has taken place and the numbers do not run consecutively, which would pose a different challenge.
	When a revised register is published, parties must unavoidably update the data that they hold to reflect changes to the register, removing people from and adding others to the register. The numbering is part of that process. The amendment would add complexity and potentially cost, though that is not the critical factor if it were effective. I am not convinced that it would reduce fraud, but I would be happy to explore the implications of the hon. Gentleman’s proposal with electoral administrators. I am not convinced by it yet, for the reasons that I set out, but I understand the point that he is making. If, by withdrawing the amendment, he will allow me to do so, I will ensure that we consider whether it is practicable or whether an alternative proposal is practicable to deal with the issue that he raises.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister for that considered and balanced response. He acknowledges that there is an issue that should be addressed in one way or another. I am not suggesting that we have presented a watertight solution, but the amendment is an attempt to engage with the problem. I welcome the fact that he is prepared to consider, with officials, whether there is a technical way to reduce the problem that we have identified. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave,  withdrawn .
	Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the  Bill .
	Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Use of emblems on ballot papers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Wayne David: No doubt the Minister is convinced that I am determined to make mischief on the clause. I am sorry to disappoint him. I will not embellish the concern that some Conservative Members expressed to me privately, and one or two of them in the Chamber, that this might open the way for a new symbol to be adopted if there were joint Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates in an election. I will not go that way.

Peter Bottomley: What would happen to a Labour /Co-op candidate?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my next point. That is precisely what I want to refer to.

Chris Ruane: On the subject of a joint Liberal Democrat and Conservative emblem, could a blue duck—is it a duck or a dove that the Liberal Democrats have?—or a yellow oak tree be an amalgam of the emblems of the two parties?

Wayne David: I dread to think what it could be.

Kevan Jones: May I make an alternative suggestion? Perhaps it could be a dead duck sitting in an oak tree.

Wayne David: Perhaps there should be a competition to determine the most appropriate symbol.
	On the issue of joint Co-op and Labour party candidates, I understand that the Government explained on Second Reading and before that the clause is intended to address a gap in the legislation. Can the Minister provide reassurance not only that it will address an anomaly in the case of parliamentary elections, but that there is no difficulty in the case of local elections, and that is covered by other legislation?

David Heath: I did indeed think that the hon. Gentleman intended to make further mischief, and he may have done so, marginally. May I reassure him that there is not the slightest intention of my party standing joint candidates with the Conservative party? We come together as a coalition of principle in this Government but at the next general election—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not keep up with the news if he believes that there are not divergent opinions developing on policies after the next election. We will see what happens.
	The clause deals with a simple anomaly that affects the hon. Gentleman’s own party at every election where there are Labour/Co-op candidates and they cannot use a symbol that relates to their joint candidacy. It is not only the Labour party that is affected. Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), may remember Cynog Dafis, formerly a Member of the House. He was elected on a Plaid Cymru/Green ticket. The problem did not arise then, because at that time we did not have party emblems on the ballot paper, but were he or another candidate to stand on the same basis today, he would not be able to have a joint emblem to denote his candidature. It is a small discrepancy, and the clause amends rule 19 of the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to enable a candidate who is standing on behalf of two or more registered political parties to use a single emblem on the ballot paper.

Peter Bottomley: I do not claim to be expert in this and I can see that the clause allows a candidate to use one emblem of one party. Does it disallow the use of an authorised combined emblem of two parties?

David Heath: I believe I am right in saying that the clause would allow that if the emblem were registered as the emblem of those two parties in combination. I imagine the Labour and Co-operative party will wish to register an emblem to indicate that their candidates will be taking on that joint sponsorship.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. If his interpretation is not right, perhaps we can be written to and the matter considered before the Bill makes progress in another place. It would be useful if the Government could say whether they intend a candidate standing with the agreement of more than one party to be able to use a symbol combining elements of the symbols of both parties. If the intention is to disallow that, it would be interesting to hear that. If the intention is to allow it, it would be nice to know that explicitly.

David Heath: For the avoidance of any doubt, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The emblem would have to be registered by one of the political parties, but it could be an emblem that indicates the cross-sponsorship.

Peter Bottomley: It may be that that would have to allow for the possibility that a party would register two emblems, one by themselves and one with another party. It does seem to be a slightly more complicated issue than we understand at the moment.

David Heath: It does seem to be a much more complicated issue than I expected when I stood at the Dispatch Box. My understanding is that under the present arrangements parties can register more than one emblem, for example to demonstrate regional or national differences within a single party, so I do not think that that is a problem. That is my understanding, unless I have completely misunderstood the intention behind this. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that point.
	The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to other elections. This applies only to parliamentary elections because we have already made the necessary changes in secondary legislation to address the issue for most other elections that are affected by the change. We cannot do that for UK parliamentary elections without primary legislation, and that is why it is in the Bill today. It will complete the process, so that we no longer have that discrepancy. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Personation

‘In section 60 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Personation) after subsection (2) insert—
	“(2A) The Secretary of State shall introduce regulations by statutory instrument to facilitate actions by electoral registration officers, their agents and others, including candidates and their agents in elections, to—
	(a) prevent, and
	(b) detect personation.”.’. —(John Hemming.)
	This Clause would enable action to be taken to prevent or deter personation.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hemming: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Other voting offences—
	‘In section 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Other voting offences) after subsection (6) insert—
	“(6AA) The Secretary of State shall introduce regulations by statutory instruments to facilitate actions by electoral registration officers, their agents and others, including candidates and their agents in elections, to—
	(a) prevent, and
	(b) detect the offences listed in subsections (1) to (6).”.’.
	This Clause would enable action to be taken to prevent or deter other voting offences.

John Hemming: First, I emphasise that all political parties have had members who are responsible for electoral fraud. In Birmingham it has tended to be the Labour party, but that is not to say that any one party is perfect or any one party is necessarily much worse than any other.
	I have an unusual experience as a Member of the House in that I have drafted election petitions. The best known is the one for Aston. Less known is that for Sparkhill, which dealt with issues of personation. When it was passed to some lawyers, they missed the deadline for serving it, and because of that it was never considered in court. So whereas in 2002 it might have been possible to have proven the quantity of personation that was going on, in fact it came to the elections of 2004, when there were election petitions in Aston ward and Bordesley Green ward, for us to look substantially at postal vote fraud. To start with, most of the evidence came from the fact that the Labour candidates were found some time in the early morning on an industrial estate in Aston checking that there were three Labour votes on each of the 273 ballot papers there because they did not trust each other to mark them with three Labour votes, it being a three-up election, thinking that the person with the most votes gets elected for four years. A number of the ballot papers in the then Springfield ward were cast with only one Labour vote if they were postal votes, so it was reasonable to assume that the Labour candidates could not necessarily trust each other and therefore their reasoning for sitting late in the morning to look at the ballot papers was justified.
	In trying to deal with election fraud, the Bill tries to ensure that the people who are on the electoral roll should be there, and that is a good thing to do. What it does not do and where there is a big gap—although I intend this as a probing new clause—is to try to ensure that people cast their own vote. Historically, there has been a tendency at times for there to be a sort of informal proxy. This has gone on for decades; it is nothing massively new. People think that someone is away and somebody else goes to vote for them. That has also turned into other situations where parties cast votes intentionally for people that they do not expect to vote. We have one way of spotting that through tendered votes. For those people who do not know, if someone turns up at the polling station and is told that they have already voted—it could be that the wrong name was marked on the register—they can get a tendered vote, a pink ballot paper, which is put in an envelope, so that if there is an election petition it is possible to consider the tendered votes and see whether they would have made any difference to a narrow election result. The difficulty, as we have seen in Birmingham, is that vans of people can go from polling station to polling station casting a vote in each one. “Newsnight” found out some of the details of that.
	Anyone who is interested in these issues must read the full judgment of Richard Mawrey, an electoral commissioner. He has done a number of election courts since, but he was the electoral commissioner who dealt with the Aston and Bordesley Green election petitions. We have to consider how to ensure that elections are honest. We cannot entirely rely on the apparatus of the state to do that. In his judgment at paragraph 150 he says:
	“The reaction of the police”—
	to the allegations of election fraud—
	“can best be summed up by drawing attention to the code name they gave to the complaints of malpractice—Operation Gripe. This indicates better than anything else their view that the whole business was a complete waste of their time and that Mr Hemming and the other complainants were a tiresome nuisance.”
	I may be a nuisance at times, but at paragraph 264 he said:
	“As set out above, in the course of the campaign the Liberal Democrats asserted on several occasions that the Labour Party candidates and their supporters were cheating. Mr Hemming and his team made their complaints to the police and the police largely ignored them.”
	Paragraph 265 says:
	“Mr Hemming also complained to Mr Owen, to be told, politely but firmly (and certainly correctly), that the Elections Office could not intervene.”
	There are issues there. The elections office has to handle the paperwork of the elections in a way that is seen to be fair. My particular concern at that election was that the 273 arrested ballot papers found their way to be counted, and, most importantly, I as leader of the Liberal Democrats and Mike Whitby as leader of the Conservatives at the time, were not told that 273 ballot papers had been arrested on an industrial estate and found their way into the count. So the idea that one casts a vote and it goes off to an industrial estate, the police arrest it after a little discussion and then take it in is quite strange.
	Paragraph 707 says:
	“But, when all that is said and done, Mr Hemming was right and his critics were wrong. He said that there was a massive, Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour Party and there was in fact massive Birmingham-wide electoral fraud by the Labour party. He may have played the part of Cassandra, but like Cassandra his prophecies were true. He emerges from the case with credit which is more than can be said for those police officers who treated his complaints as no more than Operation Gripe.”
	But the most important part of the judgment from Richard Mawrey was paragraph 717, which says:
	“The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated.”
	With personation, in theory it is possible to appoint polling agents who can stand in the polling station and potentially put the statutory question to people: “Are you such and such a person of such and such address?” If a woman comes in and says, “Yes, I’m Gordon Brown of such and such address,” the fact that that woman—unless she has changed her name by deed pool—is unlikely to be telling the truth is no good reason for the presiding officer not to give her a ballot paper.

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting case. Following the incident that he describes, have the police apologised for the way that they behaved, and have they given any reassurance to him that in future they will treat complaints of electoral fraud seriously?

John Hemming: There was no apology. They did start going down a different route, but they then started prosecuting people for offences that were not offences. There was one case where they prosecuted someone for what they thought was postal vote fraud, but they made the mistake of not checking whether the votes were cast
	to work out whether there was a chance that there was postal vote fraud. Most people who indulge in election fraud do so with the purpose of getting more votes and being elected, but if someone assists someone else in filling in the forms for a postal vote and the vote is not actually cast, one can assume that there is no offence. A person was prosecuted for that. There has been no apology for it.
	I am more concerned about the fact that we are doing nothing to control personation. I want to draw a distinction between actions that enable the system as a whole to act to prevent personation and actions that enable political parties to do so. Issuing an election petition is very difficult. Again, it is worth reading the judgment. The prosecution in Birmingham took place in the Birmingham and Midland Institute, in a room that could accommodate possibly 300 people, and there were often 200 people there watching the election court’s proceedings. It was the best entertainment in town at the time, and many people who saw it would accept that as a fair description of the situation. Whatever processes are put in, there must be a facility that allows them to be transparent and enables the political parties to be involved in challenging them through an open and transparent judicial process in an election court.
	At the same time, it is useful to have processes that allow the police to get involved. In Birmingham it was clear that 4,000 people’s votes were stolen in the Bordesley Green ward. There were three local election votes and one European parliamentary vote, so basically 16,000 votes were stolen. That involved threats to the postman, who was told, “We’ll give you £500 if you give us your box of postal votes or we’ll kill you.” It is an offer you cannot really refuse. One letter box was actually set on fire in an attempt to stop postal votes reaching the electoral office. There was a semi-riot involving 200 people, because obviously when this sort of thing goes on the tension goes beyond what we would normally have in rows about unparliamentary language and people start fighting in the street instead. Those are the sorts of issues that arise.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman’s new clause rightly suggests first deterring people and then being able to catch them and take action. False registration is clearly an issue, and obtaining postal votes when they are in transit is another. Has he considered whether powers are needed to be able to film each person delivering a vote in person, because there is either the postal vote personation or the voting-in-person personation?

John Hemming: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would rather he had not made it, because I had intended to say that and now he has mentioned it first. I think that technology has facilitated a situation in which we can record what happens in polling stations. Making that recording available would be the best sort of change, because it would not record which way people vote.
	I had starting to talk about the Greek situation, where transparent ballot boxes are used, which, in terms of transparency, are better than black boxes. We had a situation in Cheetham Hill ward in Manchester in 2003 when a ballot box went astray for about an hour and a half after the end of polling. Obviously that is a good opportunity for ballot box-stuffing, as people can
	put a few extra votes in the ballot box as they drive around Manchester. There are a number of advantages with the filming process. If someone is personating, we would see who it is, which in a sense is the better challenge.

Kevan Jones: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s example, but surely if someone stuffs extra ballots into a ballot box the number of ballots in it would not tally with the number issued at the polling station.

John Hemming: What happens is that basically they mark off extra votes on the marked register, so it is not difficult.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry, but that is not what they do; they mark off the marked register, but there is also the counter stub with the number on, which is then tallied with the number of votes issued. I think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be very difficult for someone to do unless they also had control of the book of ballot forms.

John Hemming: We have experience in Birmingham of identified presiding officers campaigning for the Labour party in the polling station. In Hodge Hill ward, for instance, the presiding officer was handing out poll cards to the Labour agent, which is a criminal offence, and I reported it to the chief executive at the time. In one polling station the poll cards were given to the Labour party. It cannot be assumed that just because people are presiding officers—I accept that there are two people there—they suddenly become perfect people who behave exactly as we would wish them to. If we had enough activists and we could put polling agents in each polling station for all the hours of the poll and monitor what is going on, that would not be such a problem.

Kevan Jones: I find it remarkable that the hon. Gentleman opened his speech by saying that electoral fraud, of which I think there are a tiny number of cases, affects all parties, because he seems to be very partisan in using examples only from the Labour party. Is he really suggesting that polling agents and people who work in polling stations are involved in fraud, because in my opinion that is not the case? There is a danger in what he is suggesting, because if we put in agents from some parties they could intimidate the polling clerks.

John Hemming: Under election law, putting in polling agents is already allowed; that is not a change to the law.

Kevan Jones: Well, that can be done, but what is being suggested here is that they would somehow have a role in interfering with the polling agents. I am sorry, but I think that would be a dangerous move.

John Hemming: I have two little points to make on that. First, I said that all parties have people who are responsible for election fraud but in Birmingham we have tended to find problems with the Labour party, so I am tending to talk about the Labour party. Secondly, with regard to polling agents, that is the current law. If the hon. Gentleman does not know the current law, that is life. The current law allows people to appoint both
	counting agents and polling agents. Most people do not appoint polling agents but in Birmingham, because of the large amount of personation that tends to go on, we tend to appoint polling agents in some wards when we can mange it. I have sent to the presiding officer, with evidence, examples of presiding agents who attempted to persuade people to vote for the Labour party in the Soho ward in Birmingham. There would have been other election petitions in 2004 on the basis of those particular issues had it not been for the fact that running one election petition is a major challenge and running two would be a bigger challenge, so much so that we had legal assistance on the second one.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman has made some accusations, admittedly only in passing, but they are quite serious and he has stated them as though they are fact. If he has serious allegations, he really ought to produce the evidence to the police, rather than relying on parliamentary privilege in this House.

John Hemming: I did provide that information to the police in 2004, and they had an operation called Operation Gripe, in which they basically did nothing. We have now moved on. We are eight years down the track. I do not think that it would be reasonable to prosecute people for things they did eight years ago. Let me quote again from the judgment:
	“The reaction of the police can be best summed up by drawing attention to the code name they gave to complaints of malpractice—Operation Gripe. This indicated better than anything else their view that the whole business was a complete waste of time and that Mr Hemming and the other complainants were a tiresome nuisance.”
	I gave all the evidence to the police, who piled it in a box, called it Operation Gripe and did nothing. At the same time, we have to be realistic. We have moved on eight years and I am not going to spend all my time trying to get a particular woman prosecuted for handing poll cards to the Labour party. What I said to the returning officer, the chief executive of the council, was that I wanted her to stop doing it, not get her imprisoned. There are questions about the objectives. My objective in the campaigning I have done on election fraud over a number of years is to stop it. To do that, we must have systems to monitor and detect things. That is where these particular probing amendments come in. They would give the Government a facility to make changes. I happen to think that the proposal for video recording of what goes on in the polling station would be one of the best solutions.

Chris Ruane: What estimate has the hon. Gentleman made of the cost of kitting out every polling station in the UK with such video evidence?

John Hemming: What value does the hon. Gentleman place on integrity in electoral processes? That is the real question. One of these new video camera thingies, such as a mobile phone, would cost about £100 per polling station, and if we do not necessarily introduce them throughout the country, the question is, what value do we place on integrity in election processes? To me, the integrity of an election is absolutely critical.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about integrity, but within that, and in hard times, we have to weigh two things in the balance: integrity and
	cost. So what assessment has he made of the incidence of such electoral fraud—personation or whatever? Would it be worth paying out £100 for every polling station in the UK, or would some of that money be better spent on installing disabled access, which is a far bigger problem?

John Hemming: Somewhere in the judgment, Members will find that I made about 50 complaints to the police in 2004 in Birmingham. As I have said, things have moved on, and some progress has been made on dealing with election fraud.
	One issue was the large amount of postal vote fraud, and we proved that a small number of people had forged all the witness statements, but since then witness statements have been abolished so we can no longer prove whether any are forged. So changes have been made, but not all have necessarily been good changes.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman says that things have moved on in eight years. Does he have the statistics for the number of cases of electoral fraud and personation last year and this year? Is it a current problem, or would we be spending £100 on every polling station to resolve problems that existed eight years ago but do not exist today?

John Hemming: Paragraph 717 of Richard Mawrey’s judgment states:
	“The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been.”
	In paragraph 714, which I did not read out earlier, Mawrey states:
	“In this judgment I have set out at length what has clearly been shown to be the weakness of the current law relating to postal votes. As some parts of this judgment may be seen as critical of the Government, I wish to make it clear that the responsibility for the present unsatisfactory situation must be shared. All political parties welcomed and supported postal voting on demand. Until very recently, none has treated electoral fraud as representing a problem. Apart from the Electoral Commission, whose role I have described above, the only voices raised against the laxity of the system have been in the media, in particular The Times newspaper, and the tendency of politicians of all Parties has been to dismiss these warnings as scaremongering.”
	So there we go: personation is still going on.
	In South Yardley ward this year, for instance, we put in a little bit of effort after the election and uncovered personation, but one difficulty is that when people are asked, “Did you vote?” they all tend to say yes—whether they did or not. There is a record of people who voted in 2012 but not in 2011, and when they are asked, “Do you remember whether you voted in 2011 or 2012?” they tend to say, “We voted both times,” when in fact we know that they did not vote in 2011.
	We did, however, find a small number of personated votes in South Yardley ward—not enough to affect the result, but the point is that we found some. There are difficulties in dealing with things retrospectively, however, and that brings us to the point about new clause 1, which is about facilitating change. Emotionally, I like what some democracies have, which is orange or purple dye on the finger.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman thought that his suggestion of installing a camera in every polling station might create
	a whole new raft of electoral fraud—namely, one party making a spurious complaint against a known supporter of another party in order to deter that party’s voters from voting later on or in another election?

John Hemming: First, I do not think that that is true; and, secondly the new clause is not necessarily the best way to deal with the issue, because it is an important one that needs consideration in primary legislation. Experiments—pilot schemes—might be undertaken to see how the proposal worked in certain areas, but it is an important issue that in primary legislation would attract far more Members than are currently in the Chamber to look at it. So we cannot say now what the exact solution would be, but at the moment Richard Mawrey is still right: there is no system for controlling personation.
	A voter does not need their polling card, so they can turn up and say, “My name is X, of this address, please give me a ballot paper,” and the officials are under a duty to do so. Interestingly, during the 2010 general election I had in Birmingham observers from Kenya and Bangladesh, and, after I took them round and showed them how it all worked, they were quite surprised at how easy it was to defraud the system.
	To return to the point I was about to make before the previous intervention—that is no criticism of the intervention—I am emotionally attracted to the practice in some countries of putting purple dye on a finger.

Chris Ruane: If we were to adopt the hon. Gentleman’s policy of putting an extra 60,000 CCTV cameras in polling stations throughout the country, how would that fit with his party’s view that there are too many such cameras already? An extra 60,000? Surely that would be Big Brother.

John Hemming: The question we have to ask is whether the use of something is proportionate, because in my constituency I supported the use of closed circuit television cameras, for instance, in the Yew Tree shopping centre, where they provide a useful function in an area with a history of crime. Sadly, there has been a history of crime in certain polling stations too, and, although I am not saying that we should put cameras all over the place, I think there is an argument for them as an option.

Chris Ruane: What criteria would the hon. Gentleman use for placing those—[ Interruption. ] The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) sniggers, but this is a serious issue. What criteria would the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) use for placing those extra 60,000 CCTV cameras across the nation? Would he do so if there had been previous electoral fraud or personation in an area, or if a certain socio-economic group or ethnic group had been involved? If he had a plan of the UK, where would he plonk those cameras?

John Hemming: Any decision would be better driven by the requests of the political parties. If they were willing to fund the measure so that it did not affect the deficit, they could place a camera to record what was going on and make sure that people were not being intimidated in the polling station.
	There have been serious problems with people being bullied by their families in what is supposed to be a secret ballot. That is not supposed to happen, but it happens at the polling station as well.

Chris Ruane: Would political parties decide where the cameras went throughout the nation? If there were 60,000 of them, would there be 20,000 for Labour, 20,000 for the Tories and 20,000 for the Lib Dems, or would there be some kind of proportional representation for the allocation of CCTV cameras? Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point?

John Hemming: One point about the new clause is that it does not try to be explicit about how we might deal with a specific problem; it would allow a discussion to take place. I am very pleased to have the hon. Gentleman’s interventions, however, as we look creatively at how we can deal with an issue to which, effectively, a blind eye has been turned for more than a century. When political parties had larger memberships it was easier to arrange polling agents all over the place; it has become harder as political party activity and social capital has gone down. So the hon. Gentleman might make that proposal, but what is important is that something should happen.

Chris Ruane: I was not making that proposal; I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he agreed with it and was proposing it.

John Hemming: I am proposing, believe it or not, new clause 1, which would facilitate secondary legislation to deal with the matter. I accept the point that the issue is so important that it should be dealt with in primary legislation, but it would be nice to see the Electoral Commission showing some interest in pilot schemes to deal with these issues. Personation is well known in many areas of the country, and the noble Lord Greaves has highlighted cases in his area.

Wayne David: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I have a novel suggestion: might it not be a good idea, first, to have ID cards?

John Hemming: We do not need an ID card to have some way of checking an identity. I would not go for the fingerprint solution; I think the video camera is—[ Interruption. ] The reason I like the idea of colour on the finger is that it would be a badge of honour. People who had done their civic duty and cast a vote could say to those who had not, “I’m one up on you—I’ve been out to vote.” I always say to people that others have fought for the ballot and that even if they spoil the ballot paper, they should cast their vote. I also explain to them that if something sufficiently rude is written on the ballot paper the agents and candidates often get to see it, so it is a way of getting a message across, whereas sitting at home and not casting a vote does not have an effect, and those who do not cast votes tend to be ignored. People should be aware of that.
	In the past, the Electoral Commission has tended to be somewhat complacent about electoral fraud and has been more interested in increasing the number of votes
	cast, whether or not they were cast by the person who was supposed to do so. Hence we have ended up in the situation whereby there can be phantom people on the electoral roll who vote reliably every year. The Electoral Commission has not seen that as a priority; it has been more concerned that of the people recorded on an unreliable electoral roll, a higher proportion cast votes.
	We come back to the question of the secret ballot. One of my concerns about the postal voting system is that it is quite easy for people to be intimidated into voting in a particular way because the circumstances in which the ballots are cast are not controlled. In Norway, for instance, there are controlled circumstances for absentee ballots. That is important. In Birmingham, we have had situations where people have gone en masse into a polling station and people have been pressurised by family members as to how to cast their secret ballot. In my view, each individual family member has a right to cast their secret ballot in whichever way they wish. We have had serious problems, with the police being called to polling stations because of the frantic things going on. Again, I am going back to 2004, but it is a continuing problem. One of the difficulties in dealing with electoral fraud is that unless one looks for it one does not find it. There is always a challenge on election day as to whether one spends one’s time trying to get the vote out or trying to find out what is going on.

Chris Ruane: In a recent parliamentary question, I asked how many successful prosecutions of electoral fraud take place every year, and the answer came back, one or two, but 36% of the British public think that the situation is worse than that. Part of the reason for that disparity could be that MPs and Ministers stand up in the Chamber and on the news and say that electoral fraud is a terrible problem, but really it is not and there are very few cases. Yet the whole gist of the Bill—

Lindsay Hoyle: In fairness, Mr Hemming, you have taken a lot of interventions, and we have to deal with other new clauses after this. You have already been speaking for 30 minutes, and I think you are in danger of being drawn into something you do not want to be drawn into. It may be helpful if you are not drawn into it, and I am sure that you are now coming to the end of your speech.

John Hemming: Paragraph 717 of the Mawrey judgment, which I quoted earlier, deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point. These are probing amendments. However, we do need systems to detect and prevent personation, and according to Mr Justice Mawrey, we do not have them.

Kevan Jones: This has been a fascinating debate. In my view, one of the weaknesses of the new clause is that it calls for action but does not outline what should happen.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that the number of cases of fraud in this country is small. Overall, we have a very good electoral system. In the Electoral Commission’s report after its voting pilots of the early 2000s, it found that the incidence of fraud was quite small, but, as we know, concentrated in certain communities, whether Asian communities in big cities such as Birmingham, which
	the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) represents, or those in other areas such as Bradford and Tower Hamlets, where the Liberal Democrats do not have a fantastic record. We must therefore be careful not to get this out of proportion.
	I am worried about some of the hon. Gentleman’s suggested measures to detect fraud, which would be completely out of proportion to the problem that is being addressed. Having seen his performances in this House over the past few years, I am not surprised that the police chose the name Operation Gripe. Making scattergun accusations such as those he has made today is not very helpful, either to the police or to the real debate about electoral fraud.
	The hon. Gentleman proposes to extend these measures to candidates and polling agents. In Durham, political parties do appoint polling agents, but their role is very clearly defined. They cannot interfere with the issuing of ballot papers. They can ask people for their numbers, but many, rightly, do not give them. They may be asked for the number of people who have voted, and will be happy to give that. If polling agents were able to sit over the polling clerks, as he suggests, that would be wrong because it might intimidate them. The polling clerks I have dealt with in the many elections in which I have been either an agent or a candidate are very professional individuals. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of a polling clerk issuing ballot papers incorrectly, then he must provide it. He should not throw it out in such a casual manner as he has today. I would be very uncomfortable with polling agents taking on the role that he suggests in sitting over the clerks when they are doing their job.
	I accept that the hon. Gentleman’s community is very different from the one that I represent, but I find it strange that voters take other people into the polling station to vote. In my experience of the elections in which I have been an agent or a candidate, if someone arrives who is infirm or needs assistance, the polling clerk will take them into the voting booth to assist in pointing out the names of the candidates. I have never known a situation where polling clerks allow a relative, or a candidate or representative of a political party, to go with somebody into the voting booth. The message there is about the quality and rigour of the polling clerks, who, in my experience, are professional individuals who know what the rules are.
	In Durham, when polling clerks take numbers at polling stations, it is made clear that they must sit way outside the balloting area—if it is a school, usually in a corridor; if it is a community hall, usually outside—so that they cannot in any way interfere with the process. I have sometimes taken infirm people to vote. The usual procedure is to take them to the door and indicate to the clerk, who will take over from there so that we do not get involved in the process.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd said, the hon. Gentleman is doing us a disservice in perpetuating the myth that electoral fraud is a huge problem in general, because it is not. I accept that it is a huge problem in certain areas, and the people involved should be dealt with properly.
	I find it strange that a Liberal Democrat has such a schizophrenic attitude towards CCTV given that the Liberal Democrats pride themselves on saying that CCTV is against civil liberties. I would not want any
	type of recording device in polling stations, because that would be very intimidating to individuals as regards their being assured that their ballot paper, which is a private thing, will remain private. No matter how many assurances people were given, they would fear that his suggested CCTV camera was recording or indicating which way they had voted.

Peter Bottomley: First, we have had for some time the experience of having police officers in polling stations from the days when they might have been needed to keep order. Secondly, surely the proposed CCTV camera is intended to show the ballot paper being issued and put in the box, not to go behind the screen where the paper is marked.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that, but what is to prevent someone from shifting the camera so that it covers the voting booths? My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd also made a good point about cost. I think that many electors would find it intimidating to be filmed while they were performing their democratic right. I therefore think that this is a very strange suggestion from the Liberal Democrats. They rail against the Big Brother state a lot, but this would be taking the Big Brother state to a huge and strange conclusion.
	I also find it strange that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is in favour of people marking their fingers. Again, I am not sure that that would go down well in my constituency.

Chris Ruane: Stick it on the end of their noses!

John Hemming: As I said, I think that it creates an emotional attachment, but I do not think that it is a good solution.

Kevan Jones: It might have been only a suggestion but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd said, why not stick the ink on people’s noses? Why not brand people? I am sorry, but that is not the way in which the electoral system operates in this country.

Chris Ruane: For the record, I want my hon. Friend and the rest of the Committee to know that that was a joke. I was not honestly suggesting that we put ink on the end of people’s noses.

Kevan Jones: Having known my hon. Friend for many years, I know his sense of humour and will take his comment in that spirit. I certainly would not support electors having to have their fingers, noses or any other part of their anatomy dipped to show that they had voted.
	I think that it is important for there to be robust training for polling clerks. The safeguards are already there. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) spoke about police officers at polling stations. That is a good idea where there are problems. If there are problems in certain wards, as hon. Members think there are, the Bill allows for community support officers to take that role. That is a good move because it will free up police resources. The mechanisms are there to ensure that the ballot is run fairly.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the accusation that somebody was giving out polling cards to the Labour party. His speech was interesting in that he said that the problem affects all parties, but did
	not name one case that involved his party, when we know that the Liberal Democrats have been at this on an industrial scale in parts of the country. If he has evidence of polling cards being given out, he should report it. The only problem comes if he bombards the police with 50-odd minor complaints. In that case, even I would consider him an irritant.

John Hemming: I did report that problem—it was called Operation Gripe.

Kevan Jones: I am not being funny, but if somebody turns themselves into a serial complainer, I can understand why an authority would start to ignore some of the complaints. The hon. Gentleman would be better off concentrating on specific cases on which he has hard evidence, rather than throwing complaints in like confetti, which is not helpful.
	The other thing that will help the process is individual registration, which will ensure that we get the register as up-to-date as possible. I reiterate that elections in this country are largely run fairly and correctly. We should keep reinforcing that message. When we had the pilots for all-postal and e-mail voting elections in the early 2000s, the report from the Electoral Commission was very positive. A council by-election in my area achieved a 67% turnout. If the number of votes cast is increased, the effect of minor fraud is diminished, so getting turnout up is important.
	I accept that the constituency that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley represents is very different from mine, and that there are communities that engage in electoral fraud. The effort should be made in those places, rather than there being a scatter-gun approach. I therefore see no reason for the new clauses. They are quite weak, because they do not prescribe what the action would be. They are not well thought out.
	Finally, we should praise the many local returning officers and council chief executives who work very hard and are scrupulous in running elections.

Peter Bottomley: The speech from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was interesting. It was like saying that 788 planes landed safely at Heathrow and that only one crashed, and then asking why we are spending our time on the crash.
	The new clause is a probing suggestion that something should happen. Clearly, something should happen. It would be a good idea for the Minister to say that he will get the Association of Chief Police Officers together with the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and others to come forward with a way of finding out how much of a problem there is—that means research—and a statement of how the police could gain the information on which they can base prosecutions when problems are reported.

Chris Ruane: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier intervention. That research is already in place. I referred to a parliamentary answer from a few weeks ago, which stated that there are one or two cases a year. We need to get this problem in perspective.

Peter Bottomley: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to develop a slightly different approach. I will do so very briefly.
	First, there should be a one in 100 check on postal vote applications. Secondly, there should be a retrospective check on whether postal votes that have been used have been used by the elector themselves. Thirdly, there should be a place where people who think that postal votes have been stolen—literally and physically stolen—can report it, and there should be a way to check those reports. Lastly, the police should be asked what it is they lack that would make it possible for them to investigate complaints and suggestions of impropriety properly. I think that that approach would solve the problem.

David Heath: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this Committee, Ms Clark.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has raised an important point about impersonation and other electoral fraud offences. He was very fair in what he said at the beginning of his remarks. First, he said that this is a probing new clause. I therefore do not intend to dissect the wording of his new clauses to any great extent, because I do not think that he intends to press for a Division. Secondly, he was fair in saying that electoral malpractice is not confined to one party. We all need to be aware of it, to be on our guard against it and to take all appropriate steps to ensure that it does not happen, either in our own parties or in the wider electoral process. He, of course, recounts what he has experienced in Birmingham, and it is perfectly proper for other hon. Members to raise issues that reflect the experience in their areas.
	We have traditionally been extraordinarily complacent in this country about our electoral administration arrangements. We have assumed that most people play the game according to the rules, and most people do. However, in making that big assumption, we have sometimes omitted to take elementary steps that would be considered perfectly normal in other jurisdictions to prevent the possibility of those who do not want to play by the rules doing things that we would not consider to be normal.
	As I indicated earlier in the passage of the Bill, I have considerable experience of monitoring elections overseas as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Indeed, I have led international monitoring missions in a number of countries. The things that I have seen done in other countries, which we say in international forums are the things that we would like to see, are completely omitted in our country. Some of the things to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred, such as the use of transparent boxes to avoid ballot stuffing, are normal in most new democracies. It is normal in most new democracies for representatives of parties to act as observers in polling stations as a trust-building measure. Indeed, it is common in a lot of countries to have a method of indicating that somebody has voted, such as the use of dye. Those are not measures that we should or need to take in this country, but it is important that we do not have a complacent view of fraud, or an old-fashioned view that such things cannot happen in the United Kingdom—they can, and we should be on our guard.

Gary Streeter: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that the police in this country, perhaps unfortunately, have traditionally taken a relaxed view of electoral fraud—it is almost as if it is not a proper crime? Does he welcome noises from senior police officers in the past few months to the effect that they have got that wrong and will be more stringent in future?

David Heath: I mentioned in the debate on an earlier group of amendments the extraordinarily valuable work that has been done between the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers. That work, which has involved comparing notes and finding best practice, has brought it home to local police officers that electoral fraud is their responsibility, and that attempting to undermine our democratic process by doing things incorrectly is a serious offence and should be taken seriously.
	That has not always been the case—Governments, too, have not always taken electoral fraud seriously. I give credit to the previous Government because they started to take it seriously latterly in legislation, but I emphasise on behalf of this Government that we take electoral fraud very seriously indeed and regard the integrity of the ballot as a top priority. That is precisely why we introduced the Bill and measures such as individual elector registration.
	We need returning officers and their staff to work closely with local police forces, candidates and agents to raise awareness of voting offences and the proper procedure for reporting concerns. The joint guidance from ACPO and the Electoral Commission in advance of a poll, for which the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) asked, will give examples of best practice on detecting malpractice. It will be enormously valuable. For example, polling station staff will be issued with guidance notes routinely on how to identify individuals they suspect of committing a voting offence, and on what to do if they are not satisfied that a person is a genuine or eligible voter.
	Under existing law and under the Bill, polling station staff can ask voters certain prescribed questions before issuing them with a ballot paper, including asking whether they are the person named on the register under the relevant entry and whether they have already voted in that election. Staff can withhold a ballot paper from those attempting to vote more than once. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley that the process of a tendered ballot is not well understood, but it ought to be in such circumstances. Staff must also mark each voter’s name on the register before they are issued with a ballot paper to prevent people from voting several times.

Peter Bottomley: Marking stops the person who should be casting the vote from doing so, because someone will have used their name before.

David Heath: That is precisely the point about the tendered vote. The person who subsequently arrives at the polling station can vote—whether a personation has occurred is determined at a later stage.
	Similarly, measures are already in place to prevent postal voting fraud. All postal voters must supply postal vote identifiers—a signature and a date of birth—both
	when they apply for and when they return a postal vote. Anyone seeking to abuse a postal vote that is addressed to someone who has moved out of a property would have to replicate a signature and know the date of birth to pass the rigorous checking system. In addition, the Government will introduce secondary legislation to make it mandatory—this deals with an issue raised by the hon. Member for Worthing West—for returning officers to check 100% of postal vote identifiers on return postal vote statements. Taken together, those measures will make it very difficult for a third person to intercept a postal ballot and commit personation.
	The evidence is that the number of instances of personation remains relatively low. That is not complacent—in certain areas under certain circumstances, there is a higher number, but overall the rate is relatively low. The encouraging thing is that the joint report by the Electoral Commission and ACPO shows a reduction in the proportion of reported cases following the 2011 referendum compared with previous ballots. The existing safeguards in legislation and practice perhaps are beginning to have an effect, but we are introducing further safeguards in the Bill.
	As I said, I shall not dissect the new clauses, but the concern we have with the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley is that they are vague—unidentified measures could be taken by delegated powers, of which hon. Members have traditionally taken a dim view because they allow Ministers a freer rein to introduce new measures. If we were to take additional powers to deal with such problems, we would want to do so in primary legislation.

Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise for having only recently come into the Chamber, but what the Minister says on personation is interesting. Polling officers check for personation, but many people do not speak English, particularly women from ethnic minorities. Will such difficulties be addressed?

David Heath: The most important thing is the sequence of events. First, we want to get the register right. The Bill gives a much wider responsibility to electoral registration officers to get the registers complete and accurate. An accurate register makes it more difficult for somebody to commit an offence at the point of voting. The easiest thing in the world is not to vote fraudulently but to register fraudulently. That is why we are keen to make the register accurate and complete in the first instance.
	Secondly, when tendering a postal vote—voting at the polling station is not an enormous problem for the communities to which the hon. Gentleman refers—the identifiers should mean that there is no problem. The Electoral Commission constantly monitors arrangements to ensure they work for everybody.
	There are structures in place to detect suspicious applications to register. One thing hon. Members spoke about earlier was the liaison between EROs and the dedicated single points of contact within local police forces. That ought to improve police performance in that respect. The key is the introduction of individual elector registration, which the Bill allows and which will remove some scope for malpractice.
	I criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley for the vagueness of his proposals. I know he will take that in good part, because he did not intend to prescribe. I do not go along 100% with some of the things that came up in the debate. I am not sure, for example, that having CCTV in every polling station makes sense. Some polling stations in my constituency are lucky to have electricity, let alone CCTV.
	In addition, there are confidentiality issues. I would be slightly worried about such a change. This country has a long and important tradition of secret ballots, and some people are already worried that simply being ticked off contradicts that principle. It does not, of course, but having a television camera trained on them might give those people cause for concern, so this is not something we want immediately to embrace.
	Having said that, I hope that the Electoral Commission, the police and Department officials will consider constantly what initiatives and changes of practice can be made to bear down on fraud, and I think that my hon. Friend’s comments are important. I am not one of those who simply say, “Oh, fraud is such a small issue that we needn’t bother about it.” It is not a small issue but a big issue, and one that strikes at the heart of our democratic system. Luckily, though, it is reasonably low-level at the moment, which is how we want to keep it—low-level to the point that we can actually remove it from the system. That is why we are taking such stringent measures in the Bill and why we will continue to do everything we can.
	On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend feels that he has been able to air his concerns, that the Government are responding to them and that we will make further progress on dealing with fraud and personation, which undoubtedly remain but which we hope we can eliminate in due course.

John Hemming: I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is not here to hear the answers to his points. First, he confused tellers and polling agents. Secondly, it is wrong to say that this is a one-community issue. It might be limited to certain areas of the country, but it is not an issue for just one community, and I resent his assertion otherwise. There is clear evidence that it goes wider than one community, and in Birmingham, as I said, it has gone on for 100 years, which shows that it is not confined to one community.
	The issue is one of evidence. At the moment, if somebody’s vote is stolen through personation, there is no evidence of who did it and nothing for the police to investigate, hence there is a hole. I agree with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and disagree with the Deputy Leader of the House about cameras. They would not cause a problem, because simply identifying who picks up a ballot paper does not track which way they cast it. I agree with him, however, that it would be better to withdraw the new clause and for there to be a continuing discussion. It is important that we do not forget about this issue, because it does go on, and as it currently stands there is no system to pick it up. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Representation of the People Act 1985 (Amendment)

‘(1) The Representation of the People Act 1985 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 1 (Extension of parliamentary franchise) omit subsections (3)(c) and (4)(a).
	(3) In section 3 (Extension of franchise for European Parliamentary elections) omit subsections (3)(c) and (4)(a).’. —(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.)
	Currently, British citizens can qualify as overseas electors only if they have been resident in the United Kingdom within the previous 15 years. This also applies to Members of the House of Lords for European Parliamentary elections. This amendment would remove this qualifying period, so that British citizens could qualify as overseas electors even if they had ceased to be resident in the United Kingdom more than 15 years before.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Katy Clark: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Explicit right of British citizens to register to vote and to participate in elections—
	‘(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows—
	(2) Insert “a British citizen,”
	(a) in section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c), after “either”,
	(b) in section 2 (local government electors), in subsection (1)(C), after “is”,
	(c) in section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector), in subsection (1)(c), after “either”,
	(d) in section 4, subsection (3)(c), after “is”, and
	(e) in section 7B, subsection (3)(e), after “is”, in the first place it occurs.’.
	British citizens are currently enfranchised in statute as Commonwealth citizens, not British citizens. This amendment is to introduce a statutory entitlement for British citizens to be enfranchised as British citizens.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: At present, under sections 1 and 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1989, as amended by section 141 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, British citizens can qualify as overseas voters only if they have been resident in the UK in the previous 15 years. The new clause would remove this qualifying period altogether, so that all British citizens could qualify as overseas voters, regardless of when they were last resident in the UK.
	According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, 5.6 million British citizens currently live abroad. The shocking truth is that although, as of last December, about 4.4 million of them were of voting age, only 23,388 were registered for an overseas vote, according to the Office for National Statistics’ electoral statistics. Out of 4.4 million potential overseas voters, only 23,000-odd are actually registered! Half the problem is the difficulties of the registration process, which I brought before the House during the clause 1 stand part debate on 18 June, but the other half of the problem is the cut-off limit or qualifying period.

Heather Wheeler: A number of Members have major overseas firms based in their constituencies—I have Toyota, Rolls-Royce and Bombardier—and have constituents who go and work abroad for these firms for many years. It is outrageous that they might be working for firms based in our constituencies and not have a vote. What does my hon. Friend think about that?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has read my mind. I shall happily address her issue a little later, but she makes an extremely good point.
	The House and the British people should take no pride in the fact that so few citizens living abroad are registered to vote. At a time of decreasing voter turnout, the overseas vote represents a potentially large pool into which we could tap, if the House was minded to accept my new clause. This issue will not go away, and today is a timely opportunity to tackle it. Each year, more and more British citizens, for one reason or another, choose to move abroad, as my hon. Friend said. The ONS international passenger statistics show that an estimated 130,000 British citizens left the UK in the year to March 2011—up from 119,000 in the year to March 2010. In 2008, according to the IPPR, of those who moved abroad, 55% did so for work-related reasons, as my hon. Friend said, 25% for study and only 20% for retirement. With an ageing population and particularly with the increased opportunities to work and study abroad, people are bound to continue to leave the UK.
	In most other countries, both developed and emerging, voting rights for parliamentary elections depend solely on nationality, not on an arbitrary time limit. For example, US nationals can vote in presidential, congressional and state elections, regardless of where they reside in the world. Similarly, Australian nationals can vote in the equivalent elections there, no matter where they live. However, the most startling example comes from our nearest neighbour. French citizens in the UK have just elected a new President and taken part in parliamentary elections for one of the 11 Members of Parliament whose job it is solely to represent French people abroad. They include the French MP for the newly created constituency of North Europe, who is in the French Assembly to represent French people living in the UK, Ireland, Scandinavia and the Baltic states.
	The right of Spaniards abroad to vote is enshrined in article 68 of the Spanish constitution. Likewise, the Portuguese constitution states explicitly that the single Chamber, the Assembly of the Republic, is
	“the representative assembly of all Portuguese citizens”.
	As a result, all Portuguese citizens living abroad have the same right to vote in Assembly elections as fellow citizens living in their home country. The simple fact is that the citizens of the US, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and all these other countries have better voting rights for their citizens abroad than we do for British citizens living abroad.
	For a democracy as ancient as ours, it is not an exaggeration to say that it is a stain on our democratic principles that our citizens are placed at such a disadvantage when they have moved abroad compared with citizens from those other countries. Her Majesty’s Government is very happy to collect tax from most of the enormous number of people involved, but denies them the vote.
	British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years are completely disfranchised from voting in the UK. There is certainly no lack of interest among British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years. Whenever I have addressed branches of Conservatives Abroad, this has been a contentious and profound issue. I understand that the Labour party has a similar organisation and that the Liberal Democrats have recently established their own version, so I have no doubt that this issue will have been raised by other parties’ organisations as well.
	The states in which these British citizens reside do not allow them to vote as residents, because voting rights are based on nationality and not residence, and they cannot vote in the UK on the basis of the current rule, for which there is no obvious rationale. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the House to state where there would be any disadvantage in abolishing the rule. The consequence of the rule is that many British citizens living abroad are in a state of electoral limbo, unable to participate in any election whatsoever. That seems to be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	It is not just me saying this, as a number of learned Lords agree. Let me quote them. Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat Minister of State for Justice, said:
	“I do not think there is a rationale…for the figure of 15 years, five years or 20 years”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2011; Vol. 725, c. 1133.]
	The noble and learned Lord Lester of Herne Hill said on the same day:
	“I am not aware of any rationale for how these periods have been chosen. They seem to be entirely arbitrary”—
	the point I was making—
	“and, I dare say, discriminatory in a way that violates Article 14 of the European convention read with Article 3 of the first protocol.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2011; Vol. 725, c. 1024.]
	A number of learned people clearly think that this rule is unfair.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and it sounds like a good case, but I wonder if he is going to touch on the practicalities of enabling people to vote, particularly in countries that are not in western Europe.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is all about one group of people who live overseas and last registered here less than 15 years ago, who currently have the absolute right to register as overseas voters, compared with another class of overseas voters living abroad for more than 15 years since they last registered here. One has the absolute right to register; the other lot do not. It seemed to me to be an arbitrary cut-off date; as the noble and learned Lords I cited said, that seems quite wrong.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend mentioned a category of British citizens who could not vote at all. Membership of the European Union clearly gives them rights to vote in local government elections—in Spain, France or wherever. They have the right to do so here. Another point arises from the debate about whether 15, 20 years or whatever is the appropriate period of time. We have arrangements that deny people the vote and deny them membership of the House of Lords, for example, if they are not resident here or do
	not pay taxes here. There comes a point at which a tax equation is relevant, along with the duties and responsibilities of being a British citizen. That is different from where someone has lost connection in many ways over a long period with his nationality, responsibilities, duties and allegiance to the Crown.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises two issues. The first is whether British citizens are entitled to vote in EU local elections and European elections, as is the case in most European countries. The fact of the matter is that British citizens living overseas for more than 15 years since they last registered are not able to register here in order to vote in our general elections. Secondly, he says that these people have lost allegiance to the UK. I think that that is a slur on many of them. I think many people living abroad have a huge interest in what goes on in this country. I suspect that most of the voters who are unable to register still pay their taxes, or at least some part of them, to the UK. It seems to me that if the UK is prepared to take their taxes, why should they be denied a vote? I just cannot see the case for that.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend has clearly explained this arbitrary cut-off of 15 years. That is understood. Does he agree that the electoral registration officer is obliged to register people who are entitled to vote here and, if so, who should have the responsibility to register those overseas who are entitled to vote, irrespective of whether they have lived abroad 15 years or more since they last registered here?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is up to the electoral registration officer to consider the application on the basis of the individual involved and the facts of the case. He would no doubt be entitled to make further inquiries—the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—if there were any doubt or confusion about whether the person had been registered here within the 15-year period, outside it or indeed about whether the person was entitled to vote at all.

Peter Bottomley: I understand that, but I was asking a slightly different question. Should someone have the responsibility for trying to recruit these people to register in the same way that domestically resident people like myself are if they are entitled to vote?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is a very fair point. I think that Her Majesty’s Government should have an interest in their citizens abroad. Just as it makes publicity available for British citizens to register on British electoral rolls, it should do the same thing for British citizens abroad. That would not be difficult in the age of the internet.
	Fundamentally abolishing this arbitrary and unjust time limit is mainly about giving those people who have spent their lives abroad, often working, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) said, for British companies, for international organisations and for UK Government Departments and agencies, and who are actively pursuing and often promoting British interests, the right to have their say in
	the future government of this country. Universal suffrage is in the universal declaration of human rights, to which this country is a signatory. This arbitrary cut-off time limit is totally contrary to that principle and the declaration. This is an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister to rectify this wrong. If he will not accede to my suggestion today, I request that he take this matter away and carefully consult on it, as I am absolutely certain that the other place will be interested in this matter.

Gary Streeter: I shall speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) in endorsing new clause 3. I believe that our electoral rules for overseas citizens were fashioned in a bygone age. I realise that the 15-year rule is relatively recent—

Peter Bottomley: Citizens overseas.

Gary Streeter: What did I say?

Peter Bottomley: Overseas citizens.

Gary Streeter: Thank you—a very important distinction, I am sure. I am saying that I believe our rules for people living overseas who are British citizens have been fashioned in a bygone age. When we consider the world today, a young person can work anywhere, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) who mentioned the large employers in her constituency, Many students are studying mandarin Chinese and may spend much of their lives—more than 15 years—in China. Many of our fine and bright young people spend more than 15 years in America. Given our weather, many people retire to sunnier climes overseas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) spoke about people giving up their allegiance to this country and the Crown, but many people who aim to retire overseas for ever, end up coming back. The stats are quite staggering on that. People have not given up their allegiance and they will certainly have family here and perhaps property here. As we have heard, they may pay taxes here. I believe that because we have this old-fashioned mentality, we lag behind many of the countries that my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned in respect of our systems to ensure that British citizens living overseas can vote.
	The important point about the 15-year rule, apart from the fact that there is an absolute cut-off point after 15 years, is that it creates confusion in the minds of many of our citizens overseas as to whether or not they are allowed to vote, so they do not even look into it fully. I have looked into the process we put in place for people to register to vote in this country, and I have found that it is just about as old-fashioned as could be imagined. I realise that there are security issues, but I think that the Government should consider making the system more streamlined and more user-friendly and allowing greater use of the internet.
	I wonder whether, because ours is one of the oldest democracies in the world, we have become a bit complacent. Other countries are so much more dynamic and proactive in encouraging their overseas citizens to vote. I was staggered to learn that well over a million French citizens who were not living in France at the time voted in the recent presidential elections. As we heard earlier, in this country we mustered the staggeringly small number of
	about 30,000 Brits out of the 3.5 or 4.5 million who were eligible to vote. Fewer than 30,000 had registered to vote, and of course even fewer than that will have actually voted.
	I think that we have become complacent about the importance of our democracy. We make only feeble efforts to encourage our active service people to vote, and I think that our lack of support for British citizens living overseas may be another indication of our complacency. I believe that we need to do an awful lot more to remove the barriers and the confusion, and to improve the system. A French person living in London can go to the French embassy to vote in the French presidential elections, but we cannot go to the embassy in Paris. It is all rather odd, and the Government should look into it. Perhaps, in the time-honoured Liberal Democrat tradition, they could even set up a royal commission, but we probably need rather more dynamic action than that.
	I support this important new clause, which takes us quite a long way towards being able to send a strong signal to Brits living abroad. We need to be able to tell them, “We still think that you are an important part of our democracy, and we want you to engage in our democratic processes. We want you to register and we want you to vote, because you have a valuable part to play in our country.” Let us remove the 15-year barrier, and make a much more dynamic and proactive effort to encourage Brits living abroad to engage in our democratic processes.

Nick de Bois: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). For one thing, he has more or less covered many of the points that I was going to make. I will not follow the traditions of the House by simply restating them, but will press on and make one or two observations.
	When it was drawn to my attention that we had imposed a time limit on British citizens living abroad, it struck me that we were sending a rather perverse message. I think that if the Committee supported the new clause we could send a very different and positive message, as well as doing a service to the democratic process. I do not think that we should say to a British citizen who has served his or her country before going abroad, be it through industry, public service, civil service or the military, “At the end of your working life—at the end of the time for which you have served your country and paid your taxes—we intend to disfranchise you if you exceed a Government target.” I am sure that none of us would wish to find ourselves in that position, and to feel that we had been effectively disfranchised for having done the right thing for most of our lives.
	Why are such people disfranchised? It is quite a simple question, but I can find no convincing reason for it. I looked at the reports of some of the original debates about the issue in the House, going back as far as 1984, but none of them seems to have addressed the problem. In my opinion, ridding ourselves of the limit would involve no real cost to the Government, but only a benefit.

Andrew Turner: Surely the reason is that the system was built on a 19th-century rather than a 21st-century model. I should be grateful
	to my hon. Friend if he would push for a system whereby people could vote in the countries in which they live, and the results could be telegraphed to this country.

Nick de Bois: That is entirely the point. We are living in a new world, and in a world that changes at a much faster rate than it has ever done before. There are no barriers to voting. There may be challenges for us as politicians when it comes to reaching the electorate, but that is for us to deal with. It is for the electorate to have free and fair access to the exercising of their vote. As a result of the changing world—the changing technologies, and of course the British consulates that are represented around the world—it is now possible for people overseas to vote in person.
	I should like to make one important distinction. The Committee has an opportunity to move with the times by allowing overseas voters—I mean overseas British citizens; I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is not still present, as I should be in trouble if he were—to exercise their democratic right. I was struck by a paragraph in a public letter from a Mrs Margaret Hales, MBE, who lives in Spain. She sums things up rather well, and if the House will forgive me, I shall read out the full quotation. She wrote this letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, and said:
	“I am immensely proud that one of my ancestors was Emmeline Pankhurst. One hundred years ago she struggled through arrest, imprisonment, force-feeding and the derision of the then Liberal government”—
	I make no partisan point—
	“finally to gain universal suffrage. Had she been alive today she would have supported the help given to free Libya, she would have been behind William Hague in his negotiations to secure freedom in Syria and his support of Aung San Suu Kyi. But she could never ever have dreamed that her relative would be writing to you today to remind you, the British Deputy Prime Minister, that universal suffrage is the ultimate goal of every democracy and that the government is there to serve its citizens and not to disfranchise them.”
	I rest our case.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for introducing this new clause. We had a taster of the argument it raises earlier in our proceedings, when he got some answers from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is constitutional affairs Minister, but I shall attempt to give some more answers today.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, ably supported by the hon. Members for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). If I was asked to defend 15 years as the right length of time for qualification, I am not sure that I could come up with a convincing argument, other than the fact that that is what Parliament decided. Parliament has considered this matter on a number of occasions, and it has come up with different definitions of the appropriate qualifying period. On no occasion hitherto has Parliament decided that there should not be a qualifying period, however; it has always said, “Well, there must be a point at which somebody’s links with their country of origin are sufficiently tenuous not to entail having a vote.” Whether that is the correct view is
	for the House to decide. I merely report the view the House has taken when it has discussed this matter previously.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Surely the fact that somebody would want to register their overseas vote to take part in a general election in this country is sufficient evidence in itself that they have sufficient interest about what is going on in this country to merit being allowed a vote, rather than being denied it.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I am simply reporting the fact that when Parliament debated this matter in the past, it has always taken the view that there should be a limit.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, many other countries take a different view as to the appropriate franchise. Some provide for their citizens to vote in domestic elections, while others have specific Members of their legislatures who represent the diaspora. I recall once meeting a charming gentleman who was an Italian Senator. I think I represent a fairly large constituency in the context of the UK Parliament, but its size paled into insignificance when compared with that of his constituency, which, if I recall correctly, was Australasia, Asia, Africa and Antarctica. That is a fairly large part of the world. I do not know whether he visited every parish council on a regular basis, but he certainly represented a lot of Italians who were living abroad. The point is that different countries find different ways of addressing this issue.
	Our position at the moment is that we give eligibility to vote to people within 15 years of their living abroad. We extend that also to Members of another place for the purposes of voting in European elections. Some exceptions are made in respect of members of the armed forces, persons in Crown service, persons working for the British Council and their spouses and civil partners.
	The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) asked about people performing important duties on behalf of this country in representing commercial interests that are vital to our world trade abroad. She makes a strong point. We assume the loyalty and the involvement of those in the service of the Crown, and treat them on the same basis as UK-based civil servants. She puts an argument that those engaged in the commercial world are every bit as committed to the interests of the UK but are working in a different capacity.
	This proposal is something that the Government want to consider, as we have indicated. However, we would not want to rush into it, not because of any wish to obstruct, but simply because the question of extending the franchise is a fundamental one, and both the Government and the House would have to feel comfortable with doing that, having taken due care. If we were to accept the new clause, we would face difficulties. They are minor, but they real. For instance, there is no current requirement for registration officers to keep copies of previous registers, except in so far as they need them to check registrations for the 15 years provided for under the current legislation. So under the current
	terms of checking we would not have the material to check whether someone ever had been an elector—a properly registered person—in this country. That is not insurmountable, but it is a practical issue that we would have to take into account.
	Questions relating to the electoral franchise are important. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds and his friends have made valid arguments, but there are arguments the other way, which we have not heard today but which have been expressed on other occasions, and they need to be carefully considered. What we have done in the Bill is improve the overseas voting process. One significant part of that is the proposal to extend the electoral timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 days, which will make a significant difference to those who are registered in terms of enabling them to vote. It will help postal voters and particular overseas and military voters. At the same time, we are ensuring that the underpinning of elections is more robust.
	We also need to consider what more we can do to improve the registration process. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is not in his place, raised a cogent question: what are registration officers to do to identify all those abroad who might be qualified to vote? Putting an onus on them similar to the responsibility we are placing on them in this Bill to seek out everyone who could possibly be qualified to vote would provide an insuperable problem for them if applied to overseas electors. I think that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds would probably acknowledge that that is the case.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: indicated  assent .

David Heath: So we would still need to have a responsibility on overseas electors to register, rather than have the registration officer seek these people in order to enable them to be registered. Having said that, if we can find better and easier ways to enable that to happen, we should do so; the advent of IT processes may well do exactly that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause. He has made some very important points and I undertake that the Government will give them serious consideration. We will see whether there are proposals that we might wish to bring forward in due course to address some of his points.

Richard Shepherd: I support new clause 5. The reasoning behind it is clear and has been discussed over a long period. The fact is that we only have the right in this country to vote through our membership of the Commonwealth; we do not have the right to vote as British citizens. I do not intend to take up a great deal of time, because I appreciate that the debate is under considerable time pressure, but the question of the relationship between citizens’ rights and duties has become increasingly disconnected.
	The history of our nationality laws goes back to a great and long imperial past, and each one of our Representation of the People Acts has, in a sense, tried to catch up with the world as it is. We have no greater right than as a citizen of the Commonwealth, and I wanted to see on the face of a Bill—it has been suggested that this should happen—that a British citizen has a right to vote, and for that citizenship to be the category.
	A Library note first gave me cause for concern, along with the response to a query from me about the House of Commons research paper that accompanies the Bill. That response from the Library concerned the question of the accuracy of the information presented to Members of Parliament. I make no criticism of the Library, as it is the finest resource and the most remarkable people are employed there. They often make a difference to the quality of our speech from the arguments we were originally able to articulate according to our own ability. The Library states:
	“The Research Paper refers to ‘British Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK’ in order to explain the franchise arrangements succinctly. As we agree, the RPA 1983 refers to qualifying Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens as being able to vote. I believe that most British citizens do not understand that they come under the term ‘Commonwealth citizens’. Other disqualifications are also relevant, such as meeting the residence requirements of the RPA, and ensuring that the prisoner disqualification does not apply. The Research Paper did not cover these in detail either.”
	That is why the House does not necessarily know the background.
	The debate has gone on for a long time. The arguments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the length of residency overseas that is necessary to maintain the vote here was a matter of considerable controversy in the 1980s, when those provisions were introduced. At that time, the Labour party was deeply concerned about the proposals on the false assumption, I think, that everyone who could afford to retire abroad or live for long periods in countries such as Spain would predominantly vote Conservative. That is perhaps why we have that mismatch. My experience of life is that one cannot necessarily tell how anyone will vote.
	I want to commend the previous Prime Minister. I know that that is an unusual position for a Conservative and for many citizens, but he set in train the consideration of some of our Crown authority issues, such as passports and so on. He commissioned Lord Goldsmith to conduct a review of citizenship and its relationship to the vote. The review was called “Citizenship: Our Common Bond”. The anxiety with all this in relation to the Representation of the People Act 1983 is that citizenship is not necessarily a common bond any longer, as can be seen in some ways. People have dual nationalities that they can take on for whatever reason or convenience, so they can have British citizenship but no sense of allegiance to the institutions or the country. That is the way the world is going, with a divorcing of the relationship between loyalty, allegiance and a sense of pride in one’s country. As a country, we are one of the most fortunate in the world and there is an enormous sense of pride across all communities about being British. Our right to vote as citizens of Britain should be in legislation.
	I note the remarks that two people have made about this issue. First, our spokesman in the Lords during the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, spoke to an amendment at Lords Committee stage to include the term “British citizen” in that legislation. He thought that should be set out clearly. I mention, in passing, that during the debate Lord Jopling suggested that if the UK were expelled from the Commonwealth there would be real problems with the wording in the legislation. That is a silly but technical point, in which there is truth. More
	importantly, Lord Goldsmith, in his report on citizenship, touched on the right to vote and recommended restricting the right to vote to UK citizens. These were his words:
	“However, I do propose that government gives consideration to making a clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote by limiting in principle the right to vote in Westminster elections to UK citizens. This would recognise that the right to vote is one of the hallmarks of the political status of citizens; it is not a means of expressing closeness between countries. Ultimately, it is right in principle not to give the right to vote to citizens of other countries living in the UK until they become UK citizens.”
	That is the argument behind this measure. It is an old argument and a new argument in the sense that people do not realise they have the vote only through their Commonwealth citizenship. I would like to see the measure in the Bill.
	I know that the Government must think about this and that there would be consequences, but 800 million or 900 million Indian citizens, if they gained admission here—I do not think we could possibly take 800 million but if they did gain admission—would have the right to vote in British elections. I do not think that is right. This is a big and substantive issue that affects our relationships. Citizenship by birth or through the expression of allegiance, by wanting to be a citizen and acquiring citizenship, are justification for the vote. These arguments mirror those adopted elsewhere and in other countries. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look closely at this matter and see whether an amendment could be tabled in the House of Lords to support my new clause.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) addressed two factors in his remarks, the first of which was the extent of the franchise and the different categories of people who are allowed to vote in our UK parliamentary elections. Secondly, he addressed the definition in the Bill, which his new clause addresses, of whether it is an accurate description, rather than dealing with the qualification.
	The Representation of the People Act 1983 sets out those who are entitled to vote in UK parliamentary elections as those who have attained the age of 18 and are Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are resident in the UK. In order to register, Commonwealth citizens must have leave to enter or remain in the UK, or not require such leave. I accept that that is something of a historical anomaly, but it has been in place for many years and reflects our historic ties with Commonwealth countries. There are reciprocal arrangements with Ireland, as British citizens resident in the Republic of Ireland have been entitled to vote in elections to the Irish Parliament since 1985. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not enter into a debate about whether that franchise is right, because that does not relate to the purpose of new clause 5.

Richard Shepherd: I am trying to make the specific point that our Representation of the People Act does not include the phrase “British citizen”.

David Heath: Precisely so. The 1983 Act uses the term “Commonwealth citizen” and, by definition, while we remain part of the Commonwealth—I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about what would happen if we left the Commonwealth, but I do not think that that is
	expected in the near future—that includes every person who is a British citizen, a citizen of the British overseas territories, or a citizen of one of the Commonwealth countries listed in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981. People are therefore entitled to vote in this country as British citizens, but the term used in legislation is “Commonwealth citizen” because the franchise extends wider than just British citizens and citizens of British overseas territories.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that new clause 5 would have no practical effect on the franchise, but it would be a declaratory provision setting out that the right to vote in an election in this country is conferred by virtue of being a British citizen, and that that right is extended to Commonwealth citizens. It would therefore make a distinction between the two.

Richard Shepherd: What other democracies in the world do not designate their citizens as having the right to vote? Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that, of all the countries in the world, we are the one with a mechanism under which people have the right to vote only by virtue of membership of an international organisation, the policies of which we have no control over?

David Heath: We are not entitled to vote only through Commonwealth membership. We are entitled to vote as British citizens. British citizens are Commonwealth citizens, and that is why the legislation is drafted in such terms. I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that it is important to make such a distinction, because I would hope that those of us who hold British citizenship are proud to do so. I am also proud to be part of the Commonwealth, which reflects the great history of our nation, and our electoral law takes account of that.
	There are aspects of British electoral law in which such a distinction is necessary, and therefore is specifically stated, because an entitlement is restricted to British citizens. For example, the Representation of the People Act 1985 sets out that only British citizens are entitled to register as overseas electors. When the distinction is necessary in legislation, it is made. While I understand the intention behind new clause 5, it is not necessary to change the construction of our electoral law in such a way. I fear that if it were enacted, it would introduce a potential inconsistency with other legislation which uses the phrase “Commonwealth citizen” to include British citizens and other Commonwealth citizens.
	However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I will go away and consider it further to see whether there is a useful distinction that ought to be made in our legislation. I hope he will not press the new clause today, although it is useful for him to have raised the issue. Perhaps we should at some stage address the question of whether that distinction should be made. Perhaps we should at some stage also look at the franchise, but now is not the right time and the Bill is not the right place to do that. Nevertheless, he is perfectly entitled to raise the point today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With the leave of the House, may I comment briefly on what the Deputy Leader of the House said in response to my new clause? He said
	clearly that the Government were keen to look at the issue. He rose to my challenge and raised a few minor problems with extending the franchise beyond 15 years for overseas voters, and he responded to some of my hon. Friends, whom I thank for supporting me in the debate, about some of the difficulties of the registration process.
	Of course everybody wants the integrity of the electoral register to be maintained to the utmost degree. Only those who are eligible to register should register. We all understand that. The Deputy Leader of the House asked how an electoral registration officer would promote who is entitled to register as an overseas voter, which in the Bill is a positive duty. May I suggest that for overseas voters, that would be only a reactive duty? The electoral registration officer would have to react only to a valid application that was made to him.
	May I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House and to the Committee a practical way of dealing with the issue? The hon. Gentleman should table an amendment on Report or an amendment should be tabled in another place to take powers to extend but not reduce the 15-year period at a time when the Government are satisfied that the registration process is robust and maintains the integrity of the electoral register. He would be able to do that in tandem with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, his hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who told the House last week that he would look at the measures for the registration process that I suggested to him—namely, using the passport as an identity document, abolishing the annual requirement to register, perhaps introducing a permanent opt-in for people who had registered validly once, and the possibility of using British embassies so that people could register and, even better, vote there. The Cabinet Office Minister undertook to look carefully at those measures, which could be introduced under the Bill and under the existing legislation and secondary legislation. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the House table an amendment to take a power to extend the 15 years when the Government are satisfied that those measures are in place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my new clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Voting procedure

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
	(2) In rule 37 (voting procedure) after paragraph (6) insert—
	“(7) A voter who is in the polling station or in a queue outside the polling station for the purpose of voting at the time specified for the close of the poll shall be entitled to apply for a ballot paper under paragraph 1 above and a ballot paper shall be delivered and the voter entitled to vote in accordance with this rule.”.’.
	—
	(Mrs Laing.)
	Currently, voters who are in a queue at a polling station at 10 pm but who have not yet been issued with their ballot paper are unable to cast their vote. This amendment would allow for ballot papers to be issued to any registered voter who is in the polling station or in a queue outside the polling station at 10 pm, in order that they may then cast their vote.
	Brought up, and read the First  time .

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring new clause 4 before the Committee. As is explained on the amendment paper, the clause would allow for ballot papers to be issued to any registered voter who is in the polling station or in a queue immediately outside the polling station at 10 pm or whatever time the poll closes, in order that they may then cast their vote. The Committee will recall what happened at the last general election, when more than 1,000 voters in 16 constituencies were denied the right to vote.
	As the law stands, voters who are in a queue at a polling station at 10 pm but who have not yet been issued with their ballot paper are unable to cast their vote. Both the Electoral Commission and the House of Lords Constitution Committee have called on the Government to change the law to ensure that voters are not disfranchised as some were at the last election. There is precedence for such a provision because the Scottish Government recently changed the law for local elections in Scotland to allow for voters in queues at polling stations at 10 pm on the close of poll to cast their ballots.
	I take the findings of the Electoral Commission very seriously in this respect, and the main factors that the commission identified as having contributed to the problems in 2010 were that there was evidence of poor planning assumptions in some areas; that there was use of unsuitable buildings and inadequate staffing arrangements at some polling stations; that contingency arrangements were sometimes not properly triggered or were unable to cope with demand at the close of poll; and also that current restrictive legislation, and therefore the presiding officer having no ability to apply discretion, meant that those who were present in queues at polling stations at the close of poll, were not able to be issued with a ballot paper.
	The main conclusions of the Electoral Commission published in May 2010 recommended that the law must be changed to allow people queuing at polling stations at 10 pm to be able to vote. The commission also noted that local authorities and acting returning officers must take steps to improve their planning—we all agree with that—and must review their schemes for polling districts and polling stations to make sure that they allocate the right numbers of staff and electors to each polling station. All of these practical measures should be taken, and I hope now will be taken as a result of the fact that we saw 1,000 people at the last general election being deprived of their votes. In addition, the structure for delivering elections must be reformed to ensure better co-ordination and consistency, and, as we have debated during the last few days in other parts of this important Bill, returning officers should be more accountable for the way they manage elections. Nevertheless, I want to give the House the opportunity to consider whether we here in Parliament ought to add this clause to the Bill in order to give not just the clear direction but the power to a presiding officer to act in the way I describe in new clause 4, which will ensure that everybody who is present at the right time at close of poll should be allowed to cast their vote.
	We do not want to discourage people from voting. We are in the business of getting as many people to vote as possible. We should not have artificial restrictions
	that stop people voting when they turn up to do so. At the same time, if an unforeseen incident occurs, which means that some people are at the polling station but do not have their ballot paper in their hand, the presiding officer should have a certain amount of discretion, within very strict parameters that I am setting out here, to allow people to cast their votes. It cannot be right that we in Parliament should take action that stops people voting when they have a legitimate right to do so. It goes against everything that we are trying to do in expanding democracy and encouraging people to vote and have a say in the government of our country.
	At present a ballot paper must be correctly issued to a voter who applies for one before 10 pm. Issuing a ballot paper, as colleagues will know—we do pay attention to what happens in polling stations—is not instantaneous. There is a strict process that must be followed. It includes: calling out the number and name of the elector, as stated in the copy of the electoral register; marking the number on the corresponding number list of ballot papers issued; and placing a mark in the register against the elector’s number to indicate that a ballot paper has been received. All those steps have to be taken carefully and the presiding officer must ensure that they are all taken properly.
	Therefore, it takes a minute or two to issue a ballot paper, but if there are several people in the queue, those minutes can mount up, and if there is a problem in the run-up to 10 o’clock it might take more than the few minutes to issue the necessary ballot papers. The steps that must be carried out when issuing a ballot paper necessarily affect the speed with which a polling station can deal with voters, and these practical matters must be taken into account when the House considers this legislation.
	At present there is no provision for extending the polling time or issuing ballot papers beyond 10 pm, except of course in the case of riot or open violence, when polling would be adjourned to the following day. I am not talking about exceptional circumstances when there are riots or open violence at polling stations; I am talking about circumstances, such as those that occurred at the last general election, when people are genuinely present at the polling station, perhaps at 10 minutes to 10, yet there were so many that the ballot papers could not be issued.

Bob Stewart: What happens under the current arrangements if there is suddenly a medical incident, such as a car accident, outside a polling station at a quarter to 10 and the police have to secure the area while the ambulance men deal with anyone who is hurt? Would the polling station close at 10 regardless, because that seems a bit silly?

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. That is exactly the sort of contingency that I am asking the House to consider in new clause 4. At present, if an incident occurs that prevents a potential voter entering a polling station or slows down their progress there from the car park, the tube or train station, the bus stop or the zebra crossing, nothing can be done about it.

Bob Stewart: That is wrong.

Eleanor Laing: I agree. If the presiding officer is standing at the door of the polling station and sees that there are people just about to come in at 10 minutes to 10 but they are being prevented from doing so by some very good and unforeseen reason, and if he knows that when they come in it might be two minutes to 10 and there is no way 10 or 15 ballot papers can be issued in two minutes, under the current arrangements he can do nothing about it. He has to say, “Too bad. That happened and you lose your vote.” That seems entirely undemocratic and simply wrong.
	This matter has been considered by the courts, which have held that
	“where a ballot paper has been duly issued to an elector that elector should be allowed to complete it and put it in the ballot box provided this is done without undue delay. However”—
	and this is the crux of the matter—
	“no ballot papers should be issued after the time of close of poll.”
	So if a person is standing in a queue of five or six people—it does not have to be a crowd—at five minutes to 10, and in front of them someone is having difficulty identifying their name, or is perhaps suffering from a disability that makes it difficult for them to give their name quickly to the polling clerk—

Bob Stewart: Or collapses.

Eleanor Laing: Yes. My hon. Friend once again comes up with an interesting contingency. Supposing someone at the front of the queue collapses or becomes ill and attention is thus diverted, the five or six people who are legitimately standing there at 10 or five minutes to 10, expecting without any problem to be given their ballot paper, cannot be given one if the clock strikes 10. That just cannot be right.
	The courts—this is a statement of the law at present—have ruled:
	“We are of the opinion that the true dividing line is the delivery of the ballot paper to the voter. If he has had a ballot paper delivered to him before”—
	10 pm—
	“he”—
	I say “he”, because I think that the judgment was delivered before the female of the species was entitled to vote. Let us therefore bring this judgment of the courts up to date: when I say “he”, I mean “he” or “she”.
	The judgment continues, finding that
	“he is entitled in our judgment to mark that ballot paper and deposit it in the ballot box before the ballot box is closed and sealed. This interpretation of the enactment…appears to us to give a simple, definite, and just rule of procedure… As the polling commences at”—
	7 am—
	by the officials, and the machinery being ready then to supply ballot papers to voters who apply for them, so in our view the poll must be no longer ‘kept open’ beyond”—
	10 pm—
	“the officials then ceasing to supply ballot papers to applicants.”
	That position, as stated in court, was confirmed most recently by an election court in Northern Ireland, which in 2001 stated:
	“It was the duty of the presiding officer to close the poll at 10pm by ceasing to issue any more voting papers. So long as
	voting papers were issued by 10pm, however, if electors marked them and deposited them in the boxes without delay the votes were valid.”
	The Electoral Commission, in guidance published for the Scottish elections in May this year, issued strict directions to presiding officers on what exactly should happen. Some people have argued that it would not be possible to determine where a queue ends and where exactly the cut-off point should be for people who are entitled to vote, but that criticism has to be nonsense. The presiding officer—surely, in a position of responsibility—will be able either to close the door or to usher people inside the polling station, and to say exactly where the cut-off point should be.
	The guidance states:
	“If there is a queue shortly before 10 pm”—
	the presiding officer should—
	“find out if anyone waiting is delivering a postal vote so that they can hand in the postal vote before the 10pm deadline; Make sure that nobody joins the queue after 10pm; If there is a queue at 10pm and if the polling station can accommodate all the electors in the queue, ask electors to move inside the polling station and close the doors behind the last elector in the queue”.
	That is so simple. The guidance continues:
	“If the polling station is too small to accommodate all the electors in the queue, a member of the polling station team should mark the end of the queue by positioning themselves behind the last elector in the queue”—
	again, terribly simple and straightforward. The presiding officer, the guidance notes, should also:
	“Explain to anyone who arrives after 10 pm and tries to join the queue that the poll has closed and that, by law, they cannot now join the queue to be issued with a ballot paper.”
	All that is terribly simple and straightforward.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Lady agree that under the Bill a police officer, or a local community support officer acting with the same powers as the police, could be in attendance so that if there were any dispute they could ensure that people knew exactly where the end of the queue was?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. However, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, this is not about an outbreak of violence, a riot, a demonstration, or unruly electors behaving in a somehow inappropriate fashion; it is about decent, law-abiding potential voters who turn up at a polling station before 10 o’clock, or whenever the close of poll might be, and find that because of some unforeseen contingency they do not get as far as having their ballot paper issued by that time.
	Let me explain the difference that new clause 4 would make. At the moment, most people think that if they are in the polling station at 10 o’clock, they will get their ballot paper and be able to vote. That is a reasonable position, and the new clause would make it law. It is an unreasonable position to say that someone who has arrived at a polling station ahead of 10 o’clock, and for some unforeseen reason does not have a ballot paper issued, cannot still have one issued for a few minutes after that time. Nothing in the new clause would mean that the poll stayed open beyond 10 past or quarter past 10. We are talking about a very small amount of time for the sake of fairness. In the 2010 general election, 1,000 people were denied the opportunity to cast their vote when they had every right to do so. I am simply
	asking the House to bring the law up to date in order to give everybody who has the right to vote the chance to cast that vote.

Christopher Leslie: On a point of order, Mr Evans. I wonder whether you have had notice that a Treasury Minister intends to come to the House to make an urgent statement on the news concerning the alleged market manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate, for which Barclays has today been fined a record sum by the Financial Services Authority. The mortgage interest rates of hundreds of thousands of our constituents up and down the country depend on LIBOR. We need to know how widespread this market manipulation is across the financial services and banking sectors, and whether a Minister will come urgently to the House to talk about how the Government intend better to regulate the LIBOR-setting process.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have been given no indication that any Treasury Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement, but I am sure that his point has been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Angela Smith: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. It is also a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). She is a doughty campaigner and defender of the values of the British constitution that she holds so dear, and it is incumbent on the Committee to listen carefully to what she has to say on these matters.
	The hon. Lady outlined the purpose of new clause 4 in great detail and stated that it has the support of the Electoral Commission and the House of Lords Constitution Committee. The reason for the new clause relates to the problems on 6 May 2010, when 27 polling stations in 16 constituencies experienced problems with queuing in the period leading up to 10 o’clock and beyond. The constituencies included Birmingham, Ladywood; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Liverpool, Wavertree; Milton Keynes North; Sheffield, Hallam; and my constituency of Penistone and Stocksbridge. In total, more than 40,000 polling stations were in use during the 2010 elections. As well as the 650 parliamentary elections, there were local elections and mayoral elections.
	Just over 1,200 voters were affected by the problems, leading to just over 500 complaints to the Electoral Commission within a fortnight of the elections. The strength of feeling was high. For example, 100 or more students at Sheffield, Hallam staged a protest after 10 o’clock, having been denied a vote. If that protest had carried on, perhaps the mechanisms to which the hon. Lady referred would have been activated. We are glad that they were not.
	Given all that we have heard and read in recent years about voter disengagement, it is heartening that people cared so much about exercising their right to vote that they were prepared to queue. In Sheffield, Hallam and in my constituency, they did so in the rain. That defied all the pundits, who said repeatedly in the years before the 2010 election that people were disengaged from politics, that they were not bothered and that turnouts were going down. In fact, the 2010 election saw an
	increase in turnout. For that, we should be grateful. This House should feel an obligation to ensure that arrangements are in place to avoid any citizen ever again being denied the right to vote in any election.
	The Electoral Commission report on the May 2010 problems identified two key problems. First, in the constituencies where problems were reported, there were common factors in the failure of returning officers to make sufficient arrangements for the elections. Despite their being issued with numerous publications detailing guidance, checklists and guidebooks, the planning processes adopted were inadequate. In particular, the plans were unrealistic and inappropriate, and in some cases were based on unreliable assumptions. On top of that, there was inadequate risk management and inadequate contingency plans were put in place in the constituencies that were affected. For example, voters experienced problems with the space in some polling stations, because they were small, cramped and unsuited to dealing with a steady stream of voters. That was not the primary cause of the problems, but where those conditions existed they impeded the throughput of voters and limited attempts to deal with the building queues.
	Secondly, in several of the areas where there were problems, the allocation of voters per polling station exceeded the ratio recommended by the Electoral Commission. The recommended ratio was one polling station per 2,500 voters. In some instances, the latter figure was as high as 4,500. Staffing levels also varied considerably across the piece, with some returning officers providing only one presiding officer and one polling clerk, despite having voter ratios that demanded a much more generous staffing allocation. The commission lays down guidelines on the numbers of clerks and voters allocated to each station.
	The combination of elections also made things difficult.

John Leech: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on that point. I have argued strongly that we should never have two elections on the same day when that includes a general election. It is not so much of a problem to have local elections and another election on the same day because the turnout is naturally much lower than for a general election. A general election should be a stand-alone election. We should never have local elections and a general election on the same day.

Angela Smith: Like me, the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency that experienced problems. The commission makes the point that the combination of a general election and other elections might have created problems. In some London constituencies, there were local and parliamentary elections, and mayoral elections. That was given as an explanation for the queuing problems, but the commission has pointed out that there were no such problems in some constituencies that had more than one election. I do not believe that having two elections on the same day is the root cause, although it can make things more difficult. Having two elections on the same day certainly made the count more difficult—I did not get my result until 7 o’clock in the morning.

John Leech: There was also a problem in areas where a large number of people were entitled to vote in one election but not in another. Polling station staff had to explain that to people, which slowed the process.

Angela Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point—I believe he is referring to European nationals. We would have to rely on the commission for evidence of large concentrations of European voters in any one constituency or polling district in order to make that case.
	Perhaps the most astonishing failure of all is that almost all the returning officers identified by the commission as experiencing problems with queues had underestimated turnout. In some cases, predictions were based on local election turnouts since 2006; in others, the turnout from the 2005 general election was taken into account. That was despite guidance from the commission—given well in advance of the election—that plans for elections should be based on an assumption of a higher turnout in 2010 than in recent elections, including the 2005 general election. I find it astounding that any returning officer could assume that the turnout in a general election would be at local election levels.
	Finally, the monitoring of polling station performance on the day and the plans for drawing down additional staffing were not robust, and some staff at stations failed to notify returning officers of problems early enough. By any calculation the commission’s report demonstrates the need to improve planning and processes for elections, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out. The commission recommended in the report that returning officers should review their approach to planning for adequate polling station and staffing provision at future elections, and made it clear that it would be more prescriptive on those points in its guidance.
	The report also made it clear that there had been an unprecedented late surge in voters at some polling stations, to such an extent that extra staffing would probably not have guaranteed that all voters would get their ballot papers. That is the key point—the hon. Lady made it very successfully.
	The commission therefore recommended the changes laid out in new clause 4 and pointed out that the restrictive approach of the UK to the close of the poll does not compare well with electoral legislation in many other countries. In New Zealand, for example, all electors who are inside the polling station at the close of the poll are entitled to vote. In Canada, I believe that everyone in the polling station or queuing is entitled to vote. That is the approach that we want to adopt through new clause 4, which is designed to implement the second part of the recommendation in the commission’s report.
	I will briefly illustrate the provision’s value by rehearsing the problems experienced in two constituencies on that day two years ago. In Birmingham, Ladywood, 2,678 electors were eligible to vote at the polling station where the problem materialised. Turnout for the election increased to 40%—up from between 12% and 18% in the previous three years—but the station had just one clerk and one presiding officer. Just before 10 o’clock, the presiding officer asked staff to confirm the time on their watches. This is how we run elections in this country! One staff member’s watch was about 5 minutes slower than the others’, but the presiding officer took it as the correct time and issued ballot papers until that particular watch said 10 o’clock. At that point, the presiding officer sealed the ballot boxes and closed the polling station. The police were eventually called to disperse the crowd. Can we wonder!
	It is estimated that between 65 and 100 electors, some inside and some outside the polling station, were turned
	away without having been issued with ballot papers. If we take the time according to the slowest watch in the room as the time at which we close the ballot, surely we are making a nonsense of the 10 o’clock cut-off point. Does it not indicate more than anything else that legislation needs to be more flexible in order to ensure that everyone at the polling station gets the right to vote. That is a really important point.
	At Sheffield, Hallam, the problem was quite significant and involved three polling stations, at which many voters were denied the right to vote. St John’s parish church polling station in Ranmoor—a place I know well—was allocated 4,469 electors, excluding postal voters, and had one presiding officer and three clerks, with additional staff deployed in the evening. In the polling stations that had a problem, 480 electors were affected, most of them at St John’s. This was the polling station at which a protest was staged at 10 o’clock, with 100 students refusing to move and the police having to be called in.Despite the best efforts of the Sheffield returning officer to ensure that this polling station, which had a large allocation of voters, had four members of staff, and despite the deployment of extra resources, nothing could be done to get everybody in to vote. That suggests that new clause 4 would be a vital change to our electoral legislation.
	It is obvious that we need to change the law in accordance with new clause 4. The constituents of many Members were denied the right to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) has consistently raised this issue in the House and is a co-signatory to the new clause. As I said, I had 70 voters denied the right to vote in Penistone. We all feel strongly that this needs to be addressed. It is not just about students. Penistone is hardly awash with students: it is a little market town, on the edge of the Peak district, with an engineering past. It does not have a big, posh student population.
	Sheffield, Hallam, on the other hand, has many student voters, 340 of whom were turned away after 10 o’clock that night. On the day following the election, Friday 7 May, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), now the Deputy Prime Minister, made a statement in which he said that he shared the “bitter dismay” of voters who had to wait in long queues and that it
	“should never, ever happen again in our democracy”.
	At a meeting with constituents on 21 May at the King Edward VII school in his constituency, the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about the problem again, and he quite rightly described it as “a fiasco”. Responding to one student in the audience, he said:
	“I share your anger. I can’t think of a better illustration of how broken our politics is.”
	One thing I think we can say for certain about our Deputy Prime Minister is that understatement is definitely not his style.
	The problems experienced on 6 May 2010 did not illustrate a broken politics, as the Deputy Prime Minister suggested, but they do illustrate a need to change the law to make sure that this never happens again. I hope and believe that Members of all parties will recognise that and support new clause 4. Given its cross-party
	elements and cross-party support for its provisions, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government will feel able to fulfil at least one of his promised to his constituents. I conclude on that note and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Bob Blackman: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute. I rise with some trepidation to debate “clause 4”, but it nevertheless has my wholehearted support. I want to provide a few anecdotes in support of the new clause. In my view, the issues it deals with are not confined to the last general election, as they have been going on for many years. On the basis of experience of fighting elections in my part of London over 38 years, I know that turnout will double between the opening of the poll and 6 o’clock in the evening and the period after that until the close of the poll.
	In my part of the world, many people travel long distances or have small shops that they keep open for quite extended hours. At the conclusion of their work, they travel back and join long queues to seek to exercise their right to vote. This is not confined to one or two polling stations, as it applies to many. This has been a problem for a long time.
	The 2004 London mayoral election and the European elections were held on the same day, causing dramatic confusion in polling stations and leading to serious problems, with long queues forming—certainly in my neck of the woods. Some people were confused about what they were voting for, but the need to issue them with large numbers of ballot papers caused extensive delays.
	In the London mayoral elections of 2008, the number of Londoners wanting to vote for Boris Johnson as Mayor and to kick out Ken Livingstone was so overwhelming that it led to huge queues in polling stations, particularly in areas where large turnouts were not expected, causing further problems. In the general election of 2010, because of the activities of both political parties—certainly in my constituency—people regularly had to queue for an hour to exercise their votes during the day.
	The presiding officer has discretion over what constitutes a polling station. If it is a Portakabin, it is fairly straightforward, but if it is a school the question arises of where the polling station begins and ends—is it the school gates or the school hall? That causes further consternation.
	The key point is this, however. When people are keen to go to the polling station to express their views by voting, it is vital for them to be able to get there and to queue for however long it takes for the ballot papers to be issued, and for however long it takes those ahead of them in the queue who have also sought to be there validly before the 10 pm watershed to register their own votes. I can think of nothing more frustrating for someone who has travelled a long distance back from work, has arrived at home, has said “Oh yes, I must go and register my vote”, has reached the polling station at 9.45 pm, and has joined the queue than to be denied his or her vote because the queue is so long, and to be told by the presiding officer “Very sorry; you arrived too late.” We can imagine the reactions of people who have travelled long distances or closed their shops quite late in the day in order to go and vote.
	The problem has been raised with me many times in connection with polling stations in north-west London. I think it important for us to set in stone in the Bill that if someone has reached the polling station, validly, before 10 pm and is in the queue, that person’s vote will be recorded. I do not think it acceptable for presiding officers throughout the country to be able to interpret the position in different ways. If a presiding officer says “According to my watch it is 9.59 pm so I shall allow you to vote, although the time is actually 10.10 pm”, that is not a valid way of operating.
	It cannot be right that elections could be won or lost on the basis of a presiding officer’s judgment as to what the time is. That is clearly not what Parliament wants, or what the people want. What we want is absolute clarity, so that there is the minimum wriggle room for a presiding officer in the interpretation of the rules and the maximum capability for people to register their votes validly in the way that they wish.

Bob Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that presiding officers should be given a certain amount of flexibility when it comes to deciding exactly where their polling station is, and should have enough flexibility to be able to say “In the interests of democracy, I should make this decision”, or does he believe that the legislation should be so prescriptive that it lays down in black and white exactly what should happen? I tend to think that it would be quite good for the presiding officer to have a bit of wriggle room, and to have a say in what should happen when unforeseen circumstances occur.

Bob Blackman: I ask my hon. Friend to imagine this scenario. A person gets home late, arrives at the polling station, parks in the school car park and dashes through the doors of the school at 9.59 pm, but of course the polling station is in a hall further on. The person then gets lost because the signage is not good enough, or, worse still, is misdirected and goes to the wrong polling station, because there is often more than one in the same building. Whose fault is that? It is the person’s fault, because he or she is the voter.
	Such questions are difficult, but what is clear is that the law should say that if the voter has arrived in the polling station, or in the queue at the polling station, his or her vote should be recorded. What should not happen is that a person arrives at the place where the ballot papers are issued, only to be told “I am sorry, but it is one minute past 10 and we have closed the polling station, so you are not allowed to vote”—although the person has been in the polling station and validly queuing for 15 or 20 minutes, or perhaps even half an hour. That is what needs to be clarified. There should be the minimum discretion in that respect, but the maximum discretion for the voter.

Eleanor Laing: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s description of the incident that might occur. I should make it clear to the Committee that new clause 4 is not intended to help someone who runs into a polling station at one minute to 10. Each individual has a responsibility to leave enough time in which to find the polling station. The new clause is intended to help people who arrive at the polling station at 10 minutes to 10 thinking that they have plenty of time, but, as a result of some incident that then occurs—there may, for
	instance, be too many people or bad organisation—the ballot paper is not issued at 10 minutes to 10. I think my hon. Friend would agree that that is quite an important distinction.

Bob Blackman: I agree. The most important thing is that people who have arrived at the polling station well before the time deadline and have formed a queue and are waiting for their ballot papers to be issued should be allowed to register their vote.
	We are not only talking about general elections. In 2014, for example, there will be European and local elections, probably on the same day. There are often multiple elections, and further problems can arise in such circumstances. In a general election, turnout tends to be high, of course, but these problems can occur even in local elections, when turnout is lower. We, as democrats, must seek to ensure that people are given the optimal opportunity to register their votes.
	It is often not appreciated that we have huge numbers of differentials in elections, in that different people are entitled to vote in different elections. In the 2010 elections, in my constituency 10% of the voting population were from eastern Europe and were not eligible to vote in the general election but were eligible to vote in the local elections. That caused substantial confusion at certain polling stations, particularly later in the day. People were arguing about whether they should have a ballot paper. That can add to delays in issuing ballot papers to others, so people who have left sufficient time to cast their votes can find that they are not issued with ballot papers. That is fundamentally wrong. I want us to give a strong steer in law to returning officers about what they should do in such circumstances, and there should be the minimum of discretion for interpretation.

Meg Hillier: Sadly, in the 6 May 2010 elections my constituency was seriously affected by events that were similar to those that unfolded in other constituencies, and people were, understandably, very upset. I am a strong supporter of new clause 4, therefore. As there is cross-party support for it, I hope the Government will agree to add it to the Bill.
	Three elections were taking place in Hackney South and Shoreditch on that day. Our elected mayor was up for re-election, and we had the local council elections and the general election. As a result there were three different ballot papers, each of a different type. One required electors to vote for three individuals, the general election was a first-past-the-post election with one vote to be cast, and there was a preferential system for the mayoral elections. That sometimes required some explaining. Hackney has learned lessons from that experience, which I shall discuss later.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) suggested that general elections should always be held as stand-alone elections. I disagree. Although we are all democrats and are fond, especially in this House, of people voting, we have seen in respect of the timing of the European elections, which are usually held a month after the May elections, that it can be difficult to persuade people that it is in their interests to come out and vote twice in quick succession. There is also a huge additional cost attached to holding elections
	at separate times when they could be doubled up. There is therefore much sense in holding elections at the same time.
	Of the six polling stations that were affected in the borough of Hackney five were in my constituency: the Ann Tayler children’s centre, which experienced some of the worst problems, the Trinity centre, St John the Baptist primary school in Hoxton, the Comet day nursery, and Our Lady and St Joseph Roman Catholic primary school in De Beauvoir. Those polling stations did not have a huge number of electors, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) suggested some polling stations were over-optimistic and covered a larger number of electors than they could cope with, but that was not the case in Hackney. In my constituency, in each instance the total number was less than 2,500, which falls well within the tolerance levels.
	In some polling stations there had been queues at other times of the day, but by about 9 o’clock—and certainly by 9.15 or 9.30—there were serious issues. One extra staff member was deployed at the Ann Tayler centre at 9 pm, where there were particular problems, but, a whole hour before the close of polling, that was not enough to deal with the scale of the difficulty or the queues. That is why I will discuss what Hackney council has done more generally to try to solve this problem.
	Any estimate of the number of those affected is just an estimate, because some people went home disappointed and may never have told us about their problems. However, between 200 and 300 people seem to have been affected at these six polling stations, the vast majority of whom were at the Ann Tayler centre, where 134 people were turned away. A small protest took place. Happily, there was no violence, but there was a sit-in by some of the electors who were, understandably, very frustrated that they had not been able to exercise their democratic vote.
	Of course the presiding officers were approaching the returning officer for advice, and the only advice that could be given was that where someone did not have a ballot paper, they could not vote. I will not repeat all the excellent arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, but clearly that advice makes no sense. After all, these people were in the polling station, which is quite a big one. There is a long distance between where people enter the building and the actual polling booths, as there is at Our Lady and St Joseph. It made no sense to those people that they lost their vote and they were understandably very upset.
	Hackney’s handling of the situation did raise some issues. I was impressed that the returning officer gave up some of the money he normally receives; returning officers, as chief executives, get extra money for managing elections. He acknowledged the errors, and I give him credit for doing so. He met me—I believe on the Monday after the election—to put up his hands and say, “We got some things wrong and this is what we are now doing to resolve them.” From the moment that the election problems started, he began planning for the next set of elections.
	The returning officer has introduced changes, for which I give him credit. He is increasing the number of staff recruited who are trained and accredited properly
	to work on elections. He has been looking outside the town hall as well, to bring in Hackney residents, and has been overwhelmed with people’s interest in participating in our democratic process. That is a good thing. He is also increasing the number of polling stations, doubling the number of some stations and limiting the number of electors per station—my hon. Friend said that that was important. He is also allocating more staff to each station, with more on standby to be deployed if there is an evening rush. There are other procedural measures associated with keeping in touch with presiding officers at polling stations.
	Let us examine the impact of this situation. In Hackney, it caused distress to those who were unable to vote. My majority is substantially higher than 200 or 300 votes, so it did not have a material impact on the outcome of the election. Even in the local elections, the majorities that the councillors achieved meant that the outcome of any one of the ballots would not have been affected. However, we all know that there are Members in this House whose majorities are considerably lower than 300, 200 or even 100, and in some cases 92 voters not being able to vote could have had an impact on the outcome. What happens if we do not change the law and that happens in a parliamentary seat?

Angela Smith: In Sheffield Central, which fortunately did not have a problem even though all the other constituencies around it did experience problems, the majority is only 165. That totally underlines my hon. Friend’s point.

Meg Hillier: I thank my hon. Friend for that. We need to ensure that we tighten this law now to make it fairer for electors. They would be upset that, having gone to the expense of another election and having come out to vote again, the election result and the will of the people could be affected by such a situation. That is indeed a serious concern. Rather than repeat the excellent arguments made, I rest my case there. I hope that the Government will introduce this change in this Bill to ensure that electors in my constituency never have to have this terrible experience again.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on tabling the new clause. She explained clearly that what we need to do is include in this Bill—we have an opportunity to do it—what is “reasonable” and “practical”, as she put it. We are not asking for any major changes to the system we use for elections in this country, but it was quite clear in 2010 that large numbers of people in some constituencies were denied the right to vote even though they intended to wait in queues to get into the polling stations, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said.
	One issue that needs to be clarified is that the new clause would help returning officers to know exactly what the law is, as there were different responses in different parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned Sheffield. In the Sheffield Hallam constituency, long queues of students waited to vote for the now Deputy Prime Minister. I doubt they will have that problem at the next general election, but if they have such problems when they turn up to vote him out, those who have turned up to vote in reasonable time should be able to cast their ballot.
	One issue mentioned by the hon. Lady, with which I agree, concerned the preparation for elections. For nearly 11 years, I was a councillor in Newcastle upon Tyne and in 2010 I went back to help with the general election in my old ward of Walkergate. I was shocked by what the Liberal Democrat administration had done to that ward by reducing the number of polling stations. Not only did people have to travel large distances to get to the polling station, as I mentioned the other day, but there was a capacity problem in trying physically to deal with the number of electors. Making the law clear would be helpful. As I understand it, in one polling station in Newcastle the returning officer took what was referred to afterwards as a “practical” and “common sense” step by allowing people into the polling station if they had arrived at 10 o’clock, locking the doors and allowing them to vote. If the law was clear, it would, as the hon. Lady said, be quite simple to know where the end of the queue was.
	The new clause is long overdue and would help not only returning officers but the many thousands of constituents who were denied their vote in 2010. As we have said on numerous occasions during the passage of this Bill, that vote is the core of our democracy.

David Heath: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Evans, and am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) for tabling her new clause. We have had a valuable debate involving the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for North Durham (Mr Jones).
	It is simply unacceptable that significant numbers of electors are unable to cast their vote due to the organisation of a polling station. It should never happen again and we must take steps to ensure that it does not. Those Members who have expressed their concern and even anger on behalf of their constituents are perfectly in order to do so, as such things should not happen.
	I should also point out that only a small number of polling stations were involved: only 27 out of 40,000 across the country. That is not a representative sample of electoral arrangements in this country, and there were not many large queues at polling stations at close of poll that left people unable to cast their vote. That in no way reduces the impact on those who were affected, but it at least puts it in context.
	The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has made it clear in everything he has said on this issue in Committee and in this House that the primary cause of the problems was a lack of effective planning by returning officers. That will be effected not by legislation but by administrative action to make sure that they do the job better in future to avoid those unacceptable scenes. They should ensure that enough polling stations are provided to accommodate the electors in each area. It is not acceptable for there to be too few polling stations. They should ensure that polling station staff have sufficient time and training to manage the flow of electors well, as they generally do in most parts of the country and in most elections. In some ways, the firm closure of the poll at 10 pm should concentrate returning officers’ minds to ensure that, given that it is hardly news that the poll will close at 10 pm, they have the right
	arrangements in place to ensure that a complete and smooth passage for those arriving seeking to vote is effected at that hour.

Meg Hillier: I am concerned by the tone of the Minister’s remarks. If this was simply an administrative error, why did we see it across the country in such a widespread way? There had not been problems before in my constituency but there were on this occasion. The council acknowledged that there were things it could do better but this could still happen again. I cannot see what the Government would lose by backing this new clause.

David Heath: I am sorry that the hon. Lady asks why this happened in such a widespread way given that we have just established that it happened at only 27 polling stations out of 40,000. I do not think we can say it was a widespread problem. It was a significant problem but not a widespread one.

Angela Smith: Will the Minister give way?

David Heath: No, I really do not have time if I am going to do justice to responding to the debate.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest did an excellent job with her Select Committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I know that she chaired many of the sessions in the absence, unavoidably, of the Chair and that she took great care to make sure that my hon. Friend the Minister was quizzed by the Committee, when it took evidence and brought forward its responses. That is why I was a little surprised when she said that her Committee backs these changes to the legislation because that suggests that I have completely misread paragraph 98 of her Committee’s report, which was produced under her chairmanship, which states:
	“On the issue of close of poll the Minister set out the Government’s position that the issues around close of poll in the 2010 election were ‘largely around poor planning, poor resource management’ and that an attempt to legislate in this area could create more problems than it solved. We agree with the Minister that in this area careful planning and allocation of resources are likely to be more effective in ensuring all those who are eligible can access their vote without resorting to legislation.”
	That was the view of the Committee at the time.

Eleanor Laing: The Minister is right to read out that part of the Committee’s report, but since then the Electoral Commission has looked at this matter in greater detail, has taken further evidence and has recommended very strongly that new clause 4 should become part of the Bill. I have listened to the Electoral Commission and that is why I have brought this new clause before the House.

David Heath: I do not think the Electoral Commission has changed its position. [ Interruption. ] I do not think it has. It took evidence but it took no further evidence after the hon. Lady’s Committee took its evidence and came to a conclusion. I am grateful to her Committee for supporting the view that the Minister took.
	Any changes that we introduce create more potential for problems. For example, this is not what the hon. Lady has proposed but if we were to introduce discretion on the part of returning officers they would be open to challenge because of the way in which they applied that
	discretion. I am glad that she has not gone down that road.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	She says, “No one suggested it,” but that was suggested by one of her colleagues. That is why I am responding to that point in the context of this debate.
	There is a suggestion that the problem could be addressed by reference to the limits of the curtilage of the polling station, but that would be extremely difficult because it varies enormously among polling stations. The hon. Lady’s proposal is probably the least bad option, but the queue itself presents problems with definition and management, which is why it is extremely difficult to accede to such a measure. The situation did not happen widely before 2010 and has not happened widely since, but we must ensure that it is not allowed to arise, and the key to that is proper management.
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 23  May ).

The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 211, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment proposed: 31,page14,line17,at end insert ‘with the exception of Schedule 5, Part 2, which shall come into force by order only once—
	(a) the data matching pilots for pre-verification purposes established by the Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2012 have been completed,
	(b) the Electoral Commission has reported on these schemes as under the terms of that Order, and
	(c) the Electoral Commission believes that the completeness of the register will not be negatively affected.’.—(Wayne David.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee proceeded to a  Division .

Chris Heaton-Harris: On a point of order, Mr Evans. The Division bells in the immediate vicinity of the Chamber do not seem to have rung, and I am not sure whether that means that they have not rung elsewhere.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and shall ask for the matter to be investigated immediately.
	The Committee having divided:

Ayes 204, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 25  ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause  26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).

Nigel Evans: I now have to announce the result of Divisions deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, the Ayes were 478 and the Noes were 9, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012, the Ayes were 290 and the Noes were 197, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to European documents on European Semester in the United Kingdom, the Ayes were 285 and the Noes were 203, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
	Third  Reading

David Heath: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions to this debate. I speak not just as a Minister who is interested in the Bill, but as a business manager in saying that I am particularly gratified that we did not over-programme the Bill. We allowed the House the discretion to use the time sensibly, and it has done so responsibly. We have covered all the issues that are contained in the Bill and done them credit. I am grateful to Members from all parts of the House for that.
	I believe that the electoral register is a key building block for our democracy. It is important that it is accurate and complete. I hope that my responses and those of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) in Committee have answered all the concerns and questions that have been raised, and shown that the Bill will make the register more accurate and at least as complete as it is now. I hope that it will make it more complete.
	On the conduct of the Bill’s passage, I thank hon. Members who have taken the time to write explanatory statements on the amendments that they tabled. That will have helped to ensure that the pilot is useful to the Procedure Committee in deciding whether to adopt the change in the longer term.
	At the risk of this sounding like an Oscar acceptance speech, I also thank members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for scrutinising the legislation before it was introduced to the House. They did an excellent job. The Bill is much better for their comments and the care they took over their work. That would not have been the case were it not for the receptive interest shown by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, and the team of officials who supported him, in responding sensibly to the suggestions that were made. That shows the value that pre-legislative scrutiny can add to the development of legislation. The way in which the House has debated the Bill has shown that it has responded to that approach, and it has dealt with the Bill in a timely fashion.
	I look forward to the debate continuing in another place. I reaffirm that it is the Government’s intention to publish further draft secondary legislation by the time Parliament returns in the autumn so that we have all the necessary tools to understand what is proposed as we take the Bill forward.
	The Bill will tackle electoral fraud by speeding up the introduction of individual electoral registration, which will require electors to register individually, rather than by household. In moving to that system, individuals will have to provide information to verify their application. The Bill will modernise our electoral registration system, thereby facilitating the move to online registration, and make it more convenient for people to register to vote. Our aim is to take steps to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people who are registered to vote and improve the integrity of the register. The safeguards that the Bill puts in place, such as the use of data matching to confirm and automatically retain about two thirds of electors on the register, the moving of the 2013 canvass to early 2014, and the introduction of a civil penalty for those who fail to make an application when required to do so, will help us to achieve that aim. As we have debated today, the Bill also includes provisions to improve the administration and conduct of elections, which will serve to increase voter participation and make a number of improvements to the running of elections.
	That we have elections based on the highest integrity, with registers that are as complete and accurate as possible, is the bedrock of our democratic system. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to make that a reality, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Wayne David: Like the Minister, I commend the programme agreed for Committee, which was sensible and appropriate—all hon. Members have had plenty of opportunity to air their support or concerns. I hope that that sensible approach is continued for the next constitutional legislation that we will discuss, namely the House of Lords Reform Bill, and that there will be plenty of time for Members to consider all the more important issues.

Mark Harper: I do not want to risk your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker, but will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much time he wants to debate that Bill?

Wayne David: As I thought I had made clear, the Opposition want plenty of time to discuss all the important issues, so that the House can come to a natural consensus. We do not want to be rushed in our consideration of a Bill that many believe is flawed. We support the principle of a referendum—want movement on it and will achieve it, despite the Government’s unreasonableness. [ Interruption. ] There will be plenty of time to discuss other matters.
	A great deal of concern was expressed by many in the House and beyond when the Government published the draft Bill on individual electoral registration. I am pleased that, after some argument, a lot of discussion and much debate in this place and beyond, the Government proposed a number of changes. First, there were originally no proposals for an annual canvass in 2014, which would be the last opportunity before the 2015 general election. That has changed, and there will be a canvass in that year.
	Secondly, there was a suggestion that there should be a permanent opt-out for individuals from the electoral register. It was proposed that, from 2014, an individual could indicate to an electoral registration officer that they did not wish to be chased during the canvass, which would mean that they could essentially opt-out of the rolling programme of registration. I am pleased that that proposal was reversed.
	Thirdly, on civil penalties, to begin with, the Government said that engaging with an electoral registration officer was a matter of personal choice. Some interpreted that as saying that inclusion on the electoral register was a lifestyle choice. I am pleased that they relented on that and recognised the groundswell of opinion that registration is a civic responsibility and duty. They have also recognised that there should be not simply a criminal fine for a head of household who does not co-operate, which is the current penalty, but a civil penalty for individuals who do not co-operate. We welcome that, not because we want the large-scale introduction of civil penalties, which we do not, but because we need to underline the importance of registration to the individual, and a civil fine for non-co-operation would be an effective way to do that. All those things we welcome.
	I am disappointed, however, because despite our in-depth consideration over the past few days, the Government have not relented on our other areas of serious concern. When in government, we legislated for individual electoral registration, which clearly shows that we were fully committed to the principle of IER, and we still are committed to it. We introduced the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and were keen that it be introduced gradually to ensure that everyone entitled to be on the register was included on it. It saddens me greatly that the Government have not carried forward that approach.
	As expressed by several Members on many occasions, we are particularly concerned about the boundary changes and the fact that the carry-over to the 2015 boundary changes will not happen. The boundary changes will be based on the new IER register. Our concern is that many might see that as a partisan measure. It is at precisely that point that independent commentators believe the register will be most vulnerable and that there will be the greatest possibility of a relatively small number of people entitled to be on the register not being on it.
	I underline the point that I and other Members made earlier about when the results of the second round of data matching will be evaluated. Let us not forget that the first round of data matching was not wholly successful. The Government’s view of how successful it had been differed significantly from the Electoral Commission’s, but they agreed to a second round to prove whether their proposed systems were water-tight. However, the second round will not be evaluated until spring and early summer 2013—after the legislation will have reached the statute book. That is a concern. It is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. We should have all the evidence in place first, and then move to the best possible system on the basis of that objective evidence. So that is a concern that I and many Members share.
	I have referred to several academics who support my contention, but I must make one other citation. Professor Ron Johnston of Bristol university is one of the most eminent, if not the most eminent, political geographer in the country. The constitutional reform Minister and I attended a seminar at the British Academy at the end of last year. It was a Chatham House occasion, and afterwards a document was published giving a reasonable summary of the contributions from many eminent people. The contribution from Professor Johnston read:
	“If, as many at the British Academy Forum suggested, the 2015 register differs significantly in its completeness and accuracy from the current one, it could have a major impact on the next new map of constituencies”.
	He continued:
	“These changes arising from the interaction of the new rules for defining constituencies with the introduction of IER will contribute to a considerable alteration in the nature of British representative democracy.”
	That, in essence, is why we are concerned. We are concerned about the legitimacy of the next boundary review in 2015, when many people who should be on the electoral register will not be on it, so a distorted electoral map will be drawn up. That will not be good for democracy—certainly not for representative democracy, as many people will effectively be removed from the electoral process.
	We expressed in Committee our concern about the lack of full carry-over for postal and proxy votes. Many disability charities, including Scope, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mencap and Sense have expressed about transitional arrangements for proxy and postal votes as they are worried that many of the people they represent and work for may be disfranchised. The Government rightly carried out a pre-legislative consultation and made some changes, but I really wish they had taken more heed of the people who work closely with those who are disabled and those who are members of disabled charities. I reiterate the collective response of the organisations I mentioned, which were concerned about the
	“need to ensure that the requirement for absent voters to be registered under the new system does not inadvertently disenfranchise disabled voters who rely on postal votes to mitigate the inaccessibility of polling stations.”

Susan Elan Jones: If I recall correctly, the words in the box that has to be ticked for postal voting include “at all future elections”, but that
	will not apply at all future elections unless Parliament decides to play around and change the rules. Does my hon. Friend agree that this might disadvantage a great many people who would wish to vote in the elections but who have, quite frankly, been led down the garden path on this issue?

Wayne David: Yes, that is a real concern. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when I referred to my own mother of 86. She ticked the box and assumed she would have a postal vote for the rest of her life. She will be surprised if she does not get through the data-matching exercise and finds she has to fill in a complicated form to be able to exercise the vote she thought she always had.
	Those are our two real concerns, which loomed large in our Committee debate. We have other concerns as well. The role of the Electoral Commission has been referred to many times by a number of Members in debating different clauses and amendments. We think that the Electoral Commission should play a pivotal role in achieving the move towards individual electoral registration. We are concerned that the Government as a whole seem intent on undermining and degrading the Electoral Commission’s role.
	We are also concerned about the lack of ring-fencing of moneys for electoral registration officers—

Chris Ruane: Before my hon. Friend moves on to ring-fencing, I would like to say that the Electoral Commission has been pivotal over the past year or so in putting the case for the proper introduction of electoral registration. Does he think that that has upset the Government and explains why they want to reduce its role, as the Electoral Commission has come up with the facts and figures and supported the arguments of the civic societies and, indeed, my hon. Friend’s position as shadow Minister?

Wayne David: I cannot, of course, speak for the Government, and unfortunately I cannot read the Government’s mind, but I believe that there is some concern in Government circles about the role of the Electoral Commission. We strongly believe that the whole electoral process needs to be firmly depoliticised—that it needs to be outside and above the short-term interests of party politics—and we think that the Electoral Commission is the key organisation that can ensure that that happens. We therefore think it important for the commission’s role to be defended and enhanced whenever possible.
	I was going to say something about the ring-fencing of resources. The chief executive of the association of electoral registration officers, whose views I have quoted previously, says that there should be a firm demarcation and ring-fencing of what resources are available, so that EROs know exactly where they stand when it comes to the resources they need to introduce a new system. It is not just a question of ensuring that the right systems are in place; it is also a question of ensuring that EROs themselves are trained and retrained, and are competent to make the system work effectively. We fear that the money may not be sufficient, and it certainly is not ring-fenced.

Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. About five years ago, when Labour was in office, I asked the Government to specify the amount spent per elector in each local authority area. The figure for England was not available, but I managed to obtain the figure for Wales from the Welsh Government, and lo and behold I found that the more a local authority spent on registration the greater the registration rates. I think that funding is crucial to proper implementation, and that ring-fencing the funding is crucial to the actual spending of it.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully and clearly. I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done locally and among his colleagues here in Parliament in raising awareness of an issue that is central to our democratic process. We have all come round to his point of view that it is a vital issue, but he was the trailblazer, and I want to record our particular and general thanks, as a House, for his efforts.
	Let me list, very briefly, a number of other matters that concern us. In its present form, the Bill gives Ministers the power to cancel the annual canvass at any time. The Government’s reasoning is based on the idea that an annual canvass will not be required as the register becomes more complete and accurate. We believe that, although a Minister might push that through Parliament, it gives Ministers far too much power to intervene in a crucial aspect of the electoral registration process. Removing annual canvasses risks causing a marked deterioration in the quality of the electoral roll.
	If we are fortunate enough to move eventually—as I think it may well be, rather than straight away—towards an electoral register that is pretty complete, we need to ensure that it remains complete. That is why it is so important that we do not rest on our laurels but ensure that the annual canvass is in place, that as many people as possible are on the register, and that they stay there.
	On the first day of the Committee stage, the Minister made great play of the publication of secondary legislation. He told us that some had been placed in the Library before the Committee stage had begun. Well, that was partly true. I went to the Library and found that some secondary legislation in draft form had been placed there minutes before the beginning of the debate, so that it had not been possible to have sight of it beforehand. There were only two pieces of draft legislation there anyway, both of which refer to verification. One addresses what alternative evidence might be required if an individual were unable to come forward with a national insurance number or a date of birth. The Government suggest that there should be a list of alternative documents. The first list mentions a utility or landline phone bill, a Post Office, bank or building society statement, a debit or credit card statement, and a mortgage statement. The individual will be asked to provide two or more documents from that list. It is perfectly possible that an individual will be unable to provide two such documents, however. As we all know, ever fewer people are using landline telephones, so they would not be able to produce that document—people increasingly rely solely on mobile phones. They may not have a bank account, or own a house either, so they will not have a mortgage statement, and they might not have a Post Office account. Such a person would have a moral right to claim they ought to be on the register even though they were unable to fulfil the criteria the Government have asked of them.
	In respect of the second list, it is stated that:
	“Proof of name and date of birth will also need to be provided. Currently our view is that this will involve one document from the list below”.
	That list consists of Commonwealth or EU passport, Commonwealth or EU identity card, and a British passport. Again, it is perfectly possible that a British citizen might not have a passport. Therefore, yet again, the Government are being too prescriptive and are not allowing people to exercise their democratic right to be on the electoral register. I have concerns about the secondary legislation, therefore.
	It is a pity that the constitutional affairs Minister, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has just left the Chamber, because I was hoping he would stay to hear about my next area of concern; I hope he returns before we vote. It is unfortunate that, despite his earlier utterances, he said that in his view, “Secondary legislation isn’t that important because we’re considering primary legislation here.” A key point we have been making throughout this entire debate is that this area of legislation is highly dependent on the fine detail of secondary legislation, as the Electoral Commission has said on numerous occasions. Therefore, the secondary legislation should have been produced in full for proper consideration, so we could have had comprehensive democratic scrutiny of what has been suggested. It is a great shame that the Government have not done that, despite our repeated requests over many months.
	I welcome the fact that the legislation is to include a civil penalty, but the Government have not come forward with details about how much that civil penalty might be. We have moved forward slightly, as I was told I was not far wide of the mark when I referred to parking fines, but no specific details have been given.
	We had an important debate about university accommodation and sheltered accommodation in particular. We are worried that multi-occupancy buildings such as halls of residence present a particular challenge that is not effectively met by the Government’s plan for individual electoral registration. The National Union of Students, among others, has expressed concern about the drop in electoral registration levels in university halls of residence. We share those concerns, and the Government have not come forward with any proposals that have convinced us that this potential problem will be effectively tackled.
	Our very last debate was about queues at polling stations. My final disappointment is that, despite a cross-party consensus on the Floor of the House uniting, dare I say it, all reasonable people, the Government were unable to offer any convincing argument about why they did not accept the reasonable suggestion to ensure that all people could vote in general elections. I find that very disappointing.
	As I have said time and again, we welcome individual electoral registration, as we legislated for it and we are convinced it is a sound principle, but we are concerned that the Government have not moved beyond their initial concessions and have not responded to the concerns that hon. Members have expressed in Committee. Therefore, I feel that we have no alternative but to vote against Third Reading. We believe that completeness and accuracy are important concepts, and we certainly support them, but the Government have not done anything near enough to make them into meaningful reality. The Bill is flawed and therefore it is unable to command our support this evening.

Mark Williams: First, may I emphasise how different the Bill that we have deliberated on in Committee is from the one that was first initiated and from the Bill that was expected to be initiated when we had the Opposition day debates on these matters earlier in the year? The Government have made this Bill better. The opt-out would have made it difficult for my party to support the Bill. Concessions were made on the annual canvass and the penalty, matters that were also of great concern to those who served with me on the Lib Dem Back-Bench constitutional reform committee. I thank the Government for those huge concessions, as they are significant. They illustrate the fact that the Government have listened, that the pre-legislative scrutiny process has worked and that we have had the necessary response. To be fair to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), throughout the Committee stage he has acknowledged the extent of those concessions, appreciating and applauding them. I, too, have concerns about the release of the draft secondary legislation, although I applaud the fact that it came, albeit a little late in the day. We are told by my hon. Friend the Minister that that draft legislation will appear before the deliberations in another place.
	The aspirations of completeness and accuracy are shared by all of us, on both sides of the House—or they should be. As the Bill leaves this place, I wish to make some observations. I welcome the fixed penalty. We had a good debate on the scale of the penalty and whether it should be £100—we had a probing amendment from the hon. Gentleman on that. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), dared to suggest that it should be as much as £500. For the people who may stumble into the prospect of having to pay this—some of the hard-to-reach groups we are talking about—a £500 penalty would be dangerous. The debate should be much more about the prominence of the penalty notice, the extent to which the invitations to register reach the people they should and the messages on those invitations, rather than the size of the fine. To some extent it has been about those things, but it should be about the size of the font, rather than the size of the fine. We wait with interest to see what figure the Government come up with, but I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly that it should be of the order of a parking fine.
	I wish to discuss the position of the annual canvass. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I still think there is a huge premium in politicians and agents of Government or local government actually knocking on people’s doors. The annual canvass is not just about those poignant messages on the literature or about reminding people of those all-important implications of non-registration and their civic duty; it is about getting out to those hard-to-reach groups in practice.
	We talked about the student community, and the houses in multiple occupation, and my area’s 147 villages mean that there are challenges of rurality that make groups hard to reach. Someone with a serious physical disability who lives in the Cambrian mountains has added difficulties. More prominence should be given not only to their difficulties in accessing polling stations but to the means by which they register. It is important that those in the other place focus on those questions, too.
	We debated the dissemination of good practice and the role of the Electoral Commission. I am glad that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) is in the Chamber. He has been in the Chamber a lot, but every time I have tried to congratulate Denbighshire on the excellent work it has undertaken, which he has brought to the attention of the House, he has not been present. I am glad to be able to say again that some really good work has been undertaken in Denbighshire and I look forward to the Electoral Commission’s being in a position to spread that practice around the country.
	Had we made it a little further through today’s business, we would have reached my new clause 10 on ring-fenced resources. I hesitate to call it a probing amendment, because I am quite aware of what happened to my last probing amendment at the hands of the Opposition. New clause 10 was an intentioned attempt to have a debate on the significance of ring-fenced resources. If we agree on the goal and the aspiration, it is that this is about guaranteeing and ensuring that local authorities have the means to undertake the job they need to do.
	Finally, I paint a scenario that is a worry, but it is not a worry that leads me into the hands of the Opposition or into the Lobby with them tonight. My worry leads me to remind the Government, as I support them, that it is urgent that we get the resources, responsibilities and delivery of accuracy and completeness right. I have 12,000 students in my Ceredigion constituency, largely living in HMOs and halls of residence. Some 11 Members of this House—two on them on the Labour Benches—have been students at Aberystwyth at some point in their careers. If we do not ensure that all those students have the capacity to register individually, that will have a huge and detrimental effect when we next have boundary changes. The Ceredigion constituency is likely to be altered significantly by the boundary changes, and the prospect of another large, beautiful chunk of mid and west Wales being added to it because we have not registered hard-to-reach groups in HMOs and our student halls of residence is a huge worry. That is why the Government need to tackle that with energy, enthusiasm and vigour and to get it right.
	I hope that my friends on the Opposition Benches will not take offence if I say that in the early stages of the debate there was an air of conspiracy theories. I applaud the positive way in which the Opposition have tackled issues of concern, many of which I share, but I regret that that principle of consensus will not be carried forward in the vote tonight.

Jonathan Edwards: As always it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams). I want briefly to outline where my party stands on the Bill.
	Although we support the principle of individual electoral registration, we believe that the changes to electoral boundaries that are set to affect Westminster constituencies and possibly even National Assembly constituencies in Wales make the Bill far more contentious than it should have been. In an Opposition debate on this issue earlier this year, on Second Reading and in Committee, I warned that completeness of the register was now the major issue because of its effect on constituency sizes, a point that was made by the hon. Gentleman. Accuracy
	is important, but the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 has effectively moved the goalposts of electoral registration. This means that, more than ever, completeness of the register is more important because those who are not on it will have an impact on parliamentary representation for the whole community. It will not just impinge on their own rights to choose their MP or Assembly Member. That is why I believe that the EROs and the Electoral Commission have a very important role in getting completeness of the register and why they must have the resources to do so. That is why the ring-fencing point is so important. It is disappointing that we did not have a chance to debate that amendment in more detail.
	I want to repeat the concerns about the possibility of a cliff-edge drop in electoral registration ahead of the next National Assembly elections in 2016. I hope that there will be regular updates via the Electoral Commission on the success of the EROs and the work they are doing on individual electoral reform to ensure that a cliff-edge drop in electors does not take place as it did in Northern Ireland when those reforms were implemented some years ago. That continues to be a major concern for us even at this late stage.
	We have had a good debate on the principles and implementation of this legislation, although the concerns that I have consistently placed on the record—mostly about the effects of the 2011 Act—have, disappointingly, not been fully answered by Government Front Benchers. We will therefore be voting against the Government tonight.

Chris Ruane: It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading—the final part of this long debate. My interest in these matters goes back not just over recent years but over the past 10 years.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned that there was a feeling of conspiracy on the Opposition Benches and he is right. There are just reasons for that because there was a settled consensus in 2009 that this legislation would be introduced with support of both sides of the House by 2015. During that six-year period there was to be an opportunity to raise electoral registration levels to their maximum so that we could have a full analysis of the drop and get people back on the register. It was all agreed and cut and dried after many years of debate that the date would be 2015, but the first act of the coalition was to bring that consensual date forward by a year. That might have been happenstance or coincidence, or it might have been that it would benefit them.

Kevan Jones: Like my hon. Friend, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but one does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to look at the facts and see where this change and the redrawing of the boundaries came from. The Conservative party has learned from the United States, where the American Legislative Exchange Council, which backed and funded the Atlantic Bridge scheme in which senior Government members were involved, did exactly the same thing to make it more difficult for people to vote in local elections.

Chris Ruane: Absolutely. It was my hon. Friend himself who put me on to relevant websites. There are specific examples across the whole of the United States, and lo
	and behold they happen in Republican states. They call it voter frustration or voter suppression. There are examples of the poor and the black being kept off the register going back to the 1950s.
	There is a feeling of conspiracy on the Opposition Benches because the date has been brought forward by one year. As I said, it might have been happenstance or coincidence, but I think it was a deliberate attempt to gain maximum political advantage first for the 2015 election and secondly for the redrawing of the freeze date for the next Boundary Commission in December 2015. There was particular concern on the Opposition Benches, and, I hope, on the Government Benches as well—I know that some senior Liberal Democrats were concerned—when the Electoral Commission said that the number of current unregistered voters was 6 million, not 3 million. I informed the House that I had told the Electoral Commission that two years previously and that it had said, “No.” Then it did the research and said, “Yes, you are right—it is 6 million but it is a different 6 million” from the figures I got from Experian. When it predicted that that 6 million would go to 16 million unregistered voters, we were at risk of becoming like a banana republic, with 40% of our electorate being off the register.

Angela Smith: To go back to my hon. Friend’s previous point, does he share my surprise—astonishment, actually—that Government Front Benchers have never managed to come up with a decent reason why the carry-over register cannot be used for the boundary review in 2015?

Chris Ruane: I will come on to that point when I conclude my speech, but I share my hon. Friend’s concern.
	There was a lack of co-operation at the start of this process. The Government were sure that they were absolutely right and that the independent Electoral Commission’s figures were nonsense. They initially dismissed the concerns of civic society, including Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Reform Society and Age Concern.
	We can compare the Government’s approach with Labour’s attitude on the constitutional changes that we made during our 13 years in government. People may say that we did not do enough to get those who were unregistered back on the register. I would agree with them entirely, because I was knocking on Ministers’ doors—and Prime Ministers’ doors—to say that there was a problem, but it was not properly addressed. However, Labour cannot be accused of using those changes for party political advantage.

Jonathan Edwards: Given that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, I refer him to the Government of Wales Act 2006, because there was not much cross-party support for the reforms that were led by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain).

Chris Ruane: Let me set out a list of the constitutional changes that Labour implemented and the way in which we approached them. We changed the position in 2001 so that if someone did not put their name down for two years on the trot, they were taken off the register. That was the cause of the first big drop. Some 1 million to 2 million people came off the register as a result of the Labour Government’s action, and they were our voters. I thought it was daft, but we did it, even though it went against us.
	In Scotland, a consensus was in place five years prior to devolution, meaning that everything had been squared with all sections of society. We introduced proportional representation for European elections when we did not need to, and we went from four Labour MEPs in Wales down to one.

Kevan Jones: It was a mistake.

Chris Ruane: Politically, they were all mistakes, but constitutionally it may have been the right thing to do.
	When PR for local government was introduced in Scotland, Labour lost its natural base. Had we not introduced the change, we could have been in control of local government in Scotland. We also introduced devolution for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In 1997, we had a huge majority of 180, so we could have railroaded those proposals through and used first past the post for the devolved Administrations, but instead we used proportional representation. All Labour’s constitutional changes were neither party political nor politicised, and that is the big difference compared with this Government’s constitutional changes. The Deputy Prime Minister said that his proposals were the biggest constitutional change since 1832, and House of Lords reform is probably the biggest constitutional change since Magna Carta or 1066, but they are all being rushed through for party political advantage. A Government who use party political advantage on constitutional measures set a dangerous precedent because the party that comes in after them might do exactly the same thing, so it becomes a zero-sum game. Such measures should be taken forward with party political consensus.
	I give some credit to the Government—this is the nice part of my speech, although there will be a sting in the tail—because, despite their initial position of intransigence, their Ministers then listened. That was only because the Opposition’s excellent Front-Bench team took the issues out to wider society, such as the Electoral Reform Society, Unlock Democracy and Age Concern. Those organisations held meetings in the House of Commons, took evidence and contacted the Government. The Electoral Commission, the independent monitoring voice, had massive concerns about the proposals. I also pay tribute to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee under its excellent Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), which took evidence and produced a consensual report containing strong recommendations. Our Front-Bench team has shown strong leadership throughout the process.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned Denbighshire county council, and while I am giving out plaudits, I pay tribute to the council and its electoral registration officer, Gareth Evans, for increasing elector registrations in Vale of Clwyd from 47,000 to 57,000 over five years. I pay tribute also to the leadership of the chief executive, Mohammed Mehmet, who was the one who issued the letters to the non-responders, saying that if they did not fill in their electoral registration form, he would turn them over to the county council’s solicitors and they would be fined £1,000. That had a big impact and increased registration. Even in the Rhyl West ward, one of the poorest wards in the whole country, with 900 houses in multiple occupation, registration increased from 2,500 to 3,500 electors.
	Now for the sting in the tail. I am pleased with the concessions made so far, but there are two outstanding concessions that we want. If the Minister were to say that he was prepared to listen to us on this, we may not vote against Third Reading. The first concession that we seek is on the next boundary date—2015. There needs to be a carry-over from the old register to the new register. The second is a carry-over for postal ballots. There can be no reason whatever for not accepting this, except party political advantage. I warn the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to be very wary. The advantage will be for the Conservatives, and it will come up and bite the Liberal Democrats from behind in the inner cities, where they have some presence, and in the south-west, if they do not sort the issue out.
	The House of Lords Reform Bill was printed today. It states that the freeze date for that election will be December 2011, so there will still be 6 million people missing from the register. Remember, those who are elected—the new Lords or senators or whatever they are—will be elected for a 15-year period, so if those 6 million people cannot participate in the first vote, they will have to wait about 18 years before they can have any influence on who represents them in the other place.

Kevan Jones: On electoral registration and issues to do with election, there has always been a degree of consensus in the House, which has ensured that it is not a political issue and that there is cross-party support for any changes that are introduced. But on the Bill and the boundary changes, we have seen a politicisation of the arguments.
	We do not have to look very far to see where that came from. Individuals in the Conservative party were determined to use this Bill and the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill to gain political advantage. They learned that from the United States. One has only to look at the organisation called the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has been trumpeting these changes which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, has made it more difficult for other people to register to vote or actually to vote in elections. That is exactly where the policy came from. What was the connection? The Atlantic Bridge, of which senior members of the Government were members, was supported and paid for by that organisation, which is sponsored mainly by wealthy right-wing neo-cons in the United States.
	Has the Bill been improved? Yes, it has, because of the outrage that has been generated. I do not include in what I have just said the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). He is increasingly becoming the Minister for dealing with sticky sticks. He is obviously going to—

Chris Ruane: Did my hon. Friend really mean sticky sticks?

Kevan Jones: I certainly did. I am far too polite to suggest anything other of the Minister. He is a fine gentleman. He dealt with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, he has had this Bill to deal with and he has Lords reform to deal with.
	I look forward to the long debates that we will have on that. Overall, the hon. Gentleman has tried to do the right thing.
	Has the Bill been improved, or have the most radical and extreme parts of it been expunged through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny and Committee? Yes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd, I pay tribute to the Select Committee for the work that it has done, to the various outside bodies, such as Unlock Democracy and the Electoral Reform Society, and to the Electoral Commission, which focused on the fact that if the Bill had remained in its original format it could have changed democracy in this country. The idea of being able to opt out of the register was clearly designed to make things harder and push down the register in certain areas. Just by chance they are the inner-city seats that are mainly represented by the Labour party.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend refers to the fact that if the Bill had gone through in its original form it would have damaged democracy. Does he agree that we could have been looking at a British coup?

Kevan Jones: Yes, and that is what is sad about what the Bill has done. When any legislation to do with elections or boundaries came before the House it was always consensual. This has been highly political, as the opt-out clearly was.
	The Liberal Democrats’ position is very strange. As I said the other day, it is the first time I have seen turkeys voting for Christmas. They are doing it yet again on this Bill. They think that they will get some advantage out of it, but I just do not see that at all.
	I am still concerned about how the Government will deal with the penalty. If it is a derisory amount, will it be effective? I do not think that it will be. I wait for the Government to come forward with that. The measures were clearly designed to hamper registration and make it difficult for people to register to vote. As democrats, we should not only be encouraging people to vote, but also to get on the electoral register. As I said on Monday, the important thing is not only to get people on the register, but for it to be accurate.
	A lot of things have changed since the last general election when the Liberal Democrats were in opposition, but I want to read what the then Liberal Democrat Member for Cambridge, David Howarth, said in the House on 13 July 2009. He said:
	“The validity and credibility of democratic elections depend both on the register being comprehensive and on its having a great deal of integrity. If the register is not comprehensive, it is not the electorate who are making a choice but some subset of the electorate. If it is not secure and we cannot be sure that the people whose votes are being counted are electors, that people are not voting more than once or that there is not fraud going on, equally there is a threat to democratic credibility…I do not think that anybody”—
	[ Interruption .] If the Minister is patient, I am coming on to the issue around changing the date in terms of using the register for the 2015 boundaries.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
	“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 111-2.]
	But that is exactly what the Government are doing and that is exactly the situation we will face if the carry-over is used for the 2015 boundaries. The Conservatives know exactly what they are doing. They know that the register will be depleted and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said earlier, if the money assigned for electoral registration is not ring-fenced, in certain parts of the country no real effort will be put into ensuring that the register is as complete as possible, no matter how much guidance and encouragement is given nationally to local councils, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd gave an example the other day relating to the leader of Islington council.
	I also have great fears about the data matching. I think that it is a good idea to rely not just on the annual canvass, but to use other methods as well. Durham county council has pioneered that and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly raised another good example. But if local councils are faced with budget cuts and they can get out of doing the annual canvass, they will, which will deplete the register even further. I think that the annual canvass will be more important in the early stages of individual registration than it is today. The only way to get to hard-to-reach communities practically will be through individual canvasses of those electorates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said earlier and as the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) said excellently yesterday when speaking to his amendment, particularly in relation to disabled people and those who have difficulty either accessing the registration forms or filling them in. Therefore, I fear that there are things in the Bill that will be used by certain people to ensure not only that it is harder to get on the register, but that there are disincentives for doing so.
	The most scandalous thing in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has already said, is the carry-over relating to the 2015 boundary changes. It will be interesting to see what the Government do if there is a big drop, which is clearly possible. Clearly such a drop will not be in the more affluent areas represented mainly by the Conservative party. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), said, it will be in the inner-city London constituencies such as his and others where the register will drop substantially. That will then affect the figures that will be used to draw up the new boundaries. They will therefore be artificial and will not truly reflect the electorates.
	We should be encouraging people to get on the electoral register, but what the Government are aiming for here—we know why the Conservatives are doing it—is to ensure that those people are not taken into account when the new boundaries are drawn up. I will give an example from the present redrawing of the boundaries. Durham county council, when it came into being, took responsibility for electoral registration; before it was a unitary council, seven district councils were responsible. Registration was patchy in different parts and the councils all did it in different ways. I described the other day how in some areas, such as Derwentside, it was obvious to see that there were mistakes in the register but the council made no effort to address the gaps. When the county council took responsibility, it made a real effort to ensure that the register was as accurate as possible. It put over 12,000 missing electors
	on the register, and that had an impact on the boundary commission’s deliberations for the recommendations in the latest redrawing of boundaries. In the city of Durham, for example, a lot of students were not on the register, but they were put on and that had an effect, so there is clearly going to be an effect if we do not have such a carry-over. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was very clear about that, and its Chair said:
	“There are real risks in moving to a new system, not least that people with the right to vote could fall off the electoral roll in large numbers. This would be damaging to democracy, to public engagement in politics, and to the fairness of the basis on which MPs are elected.”
	That is fundamental, and if we read the report we find that, even though the Committee has a Labour Chair, those sentiments are shared across the political spectrum.
	Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg of the university of Liverpool said in evidence on 8 September 2011:
	“If we do see a large number of people drop off the registers, even if in all likelihood they are not going to vote, that will have a profound implication for the redrawing of boundaries under the new rules that have just gone through.”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd did earlier, I think, whether the Government have provided a good explanation for introducing the measure. No, they have not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said that, in the previous Parliament when we introduced individual registration, there was consensus on the timetable, and it is more important to get the measure right and to make the register comprehensive than it is to do what the Conservative party in the coalition is doing, which is to make it more difficult to create an accurate register, meaning that the boundaries will be affected when they are redrawn.
	The other strange thing that I cannot understand is why those who have postal and proxy votes will not be carried over, either. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly referred to his 86-year-old mother, and her situation will be replicated throughout the country by disabled people and people who have had postal votes for many years, as they will think that, because they have one, it will continue on and on. It will not. If we do not engage with those individuals, we will find that large numbers of a very vulnerable section of society, are disfranchised. My hon. Friend said that MIND and other pressure groups dealing with that section of society have argued against the measure, but the Government seem to be ignoring them, and in Committee of the whole House I did not hear any explanation for it.
	Major changes have been made to the Bill, and it is better than the one we started with, but it still has within it that bit of poison, which the Conservatives will use in their attempt to gerrymander the next boundary review, and that is why I will not support it on Third Reading.

Sheila Gilmore: On behalf of members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who have taken part in various stages of the debate, I acknowledge the thanks that have been
	given to the Committee for the job that we have done. It is a good example of how to deal with legislation, and I hope that there will be many more such opportunities.
	I am not sure that we will offer ourselves up for the next piece of constitutional legislation, however, because that might delay it even further, and if we spent several months on it, as we could, it would definitely be kicked into the long grass. Therefore, I can see why the Government may not be so keen to send it to the Committee, but in general such scrutiny is important, because it gives people the opportunity, in a much less stressed and antagonistic atmosphere, to go through the difficult bits of legislation and to get people in to explain what really would not work. We should do more of that.
	As with many of these things, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If not enough resources are put into the effort to carry out individual voter registration, it will be extremely difficult. We know how different various parts of the country are. We even know how different various parts of a city or a constituency are. In some parts of my constituency, one can go down a road of bungalows or other houses and find that virtually every household is registered; the only one that might not be is where somebody has only just moved in. In other places, it is almost frightening how few people are registered. In some cases, the household has been registered in the past but those people have moved away and the next lot of tenants have moved in.
	There is no doubt that getting people registered is very challenging, especially if local authorities do not put the effort and resources into it because they themselves are not properly resourced. I see the benefit of ring-fencing in that respect. In a debate earlier today, I spoke about council tax and council tax benefit. Ring-fencing is not a bad thing—it can be very useful, and this might be an occasion when it would be. The differential resources and the different sorts of efforts that will be needed to keep registration up will be a crucial factor. It is important to give people the chance to vote. We have all encountered people on election day who suddenly discover that they cannot vote because they are not registered, although they wanted to do so and had been listening to all the coverage. We might say, “Ah, well, if people haven’t registered they probably won’t vote anyway, so it doesn’t matter”, but it does matter.
	Registration is important in terms of changes to the size of constituencies as part of the difficult process of boundary changes. People will understand that there is a worry, particularly with differential registration, that the next round of boundary changes will be affected. I still hope that the Government will be prepared, even at this late stage, to reconsider the Select Committee’s recommendation on the next set of boundary changes.
	Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 284, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)) ,

Police

That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Functions of Returning Officers) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.—(Stephen  Crabb .)
	Question agreed  to .
	Motion made, and Question put forth with (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Police

That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.—(Stephen  Crabb .)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday  4 July  (Standing Order No.  41A ).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)) ,

Public Bodies

That the draft Inland Waterways Advisory Council (Abolition) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 29 February 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)) ,

Public Bodies

That the draft British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 29 February 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
	Question agreed to.

European union documents

Motion made, and Question put f orthwith (Standing Order No. 119( 11 )) ,

Minimum Standards for the Protection of Victims of Crime

That this House takes note of the proposed draft Directive, deposited on 6 December 2011 by the Ministry of Justice, establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and repealing Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA; supports the Government in welcoming the objectives of the draft Directive; and further supports the Government’s view that existing national law or practice in England and Wales largely fulfils the obligations in the draft Directive.—(Stephen  Crabb .)
	Question agreed to.

Coryton Oil Refinery

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to express the grave concern that surrounds yesterday’s announcement that the Coryton oil refinery in my constituency will close. When the company was placed into administration five months ago, many of us believed that, because of its profitability and its productivity, it would not be long before it found new owners. So, five months later, and with no buyer coming forward to operate the site as a refinery, I have to say that this is a very sad day. I had hoped that this debate would never have to take place.
	The intention of my debate before the announcement was to lay out the fact that this was not just another business in administration. I would have explained to the House and the Minister the importance—strategically, economically, socially and historically—of the Coryton oil refinery. Before I proceed, I want to place on record my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has been working so hard over the last five months to keep the refinery operating.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I associate myself with those comments and pay my own personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) who has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to bring all the interested parties together. He has done so with dedication to achieving the outcome rather than to generating column inches, which has been the characteristic of some Opposition Members. Does he agree that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who will reply from the Dispatch Box today, has also been absolutely sincere in his commitment to achieve a positive outcome for the refinery?

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Yes, I would like to thank the Minister personally for his help and support. I would also like to thank Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and from the Treasury for what they have done to help me work with all those involved to find a solution.

Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Metcalfe: I am afraid that time is limited; I am sorry, but no.
	The people I want to thank the most are the staff, the management—particularly Jon Barden and Georgina Clarke—and, of course, the unions. Without their commitment, the business might well have closed months ago. Instead, it had time to search for a buyer and to explore a range of options that might have led to the securing of its long-term future.
	The refinery has changed ownership many times over the years, most recently in 2007, when it was acquired by a Swiss company, Petroplus, and became one of a
	group of five refineries. Unfortunately, in January this year the parent company—Petroplus—got into financial difficulties and filed for bankruptcy, at which point Coryton placed itself in administration with PricewaterhouseCoopers. Of the five refineries, Coryton is far the most complex. It has a Nelson complexity index of 12, making it one of the most sophisticated refineries in Europe. It is very profitable, and I believe that, because of its complexity and its location, it is also of great strategic importance, not least because it provides 20% of the fuel in the south-east and 10% of that in the United Kingdom. However, because of the structuring of the parent company, when Coryton went into administration it had no fuel assets and nothing in its bank accounts, although it did have £2 billion of debt held in bonds that the parent company had issued.

Rebecca Harris: Must it not be utterly dismaying for the work force of 900 people in what was a very successful and profitable refinery to find that that they are losing their jobs, although the parent company was able to go on leveraging debt against that successful refinery?

Stephen Metcalfe: Yes. When the company went into administration, finding that all the debt was leveraged against that one refinery must have come as a shock to all concerned. That just shows the mismanagement of the parent company in Switzerland.
	Once appointed, the administrators stabilised the situation and began looking for a long-term solution. Two options soon emerged, although I am sure that many others were investigated: sale to a third party and financial restructuring. The financial restructuring process began very well, but it became obvious fairly quickly that there was a large funding gap and it would not be workable. As for the sale side, PWC invited expressions of interest and numerous possibilities emerged, from lift and shift to sale as a refinery and, finally, sale as a fuel terminal, which would give a fuel company greater access to the Thames and therefore to the south-east. The site has always been considered particularly attractive owing to its close proximity to London and its deep water jetty, but ironically those factors are now to be the refinery’s downfall.
	I understand that following examination of the offers, a Russian consortium was identified as having presented the most favourable bid. It wanted to operate Coryton as a refinery, thus saving the 900 to 2,000 jobs that it supports. The next best bid came from a bidder that wanted to operate the site as a terminal. In the light of yesterday’s announcement, many have expressed surprise that no one wanted to buy the site as a refinery. Although I do not possess all the details, I do not believe that that is the case. What I do believe is that a number of credible, sustainable bids were presented, but that none of them ultimately exceeded the bid for an alternative use. I shall say more about that later.
	Last month, despite all that hard work, the administrators, PWC, made the announcement—which I think we had all prayed we would never hear—that no credible offer was on the table and no one was willing to operate the refinery, and that therefore it was proceeding towards closure. As I have said, I believe that there were credible offers on the table, but that they were not high
	enough. Yesterday, PWC struck a final blow and announced that it had done a deal with Shell to operate the site as a terminal. The timing of that announcement—before tonight’s debate—made redundant much of the case that I wanted to build to save the refinery, but I ask the House to bear with me none the less.
	As Members can imagine, following that announcement the situation has been very fluid over the last 24 hours. The one thing that has been constant is the contact that I have received from numerous parties expressing deep concern about the way in which the administration has been conducted. They talk of great secrecy surrounding the sale; they say that alternative outcomes could have been explored but were not, and that barriers were put up.
	Following yesterday’s announcement, I have a better understanding of the events that led up to it, and I think it important to examine those events. My current understanding is that the Russian-led team bid the highest amount, and that the bid was proceeding well until something happened. I have no idea what that something was. I have a number of notions, but I cannot confirm any of them. Whatever happened, however, the upshot—so I am told—was that that information was not communicated properly by the administrators to the buyers. I have to say I find that extraordinary—although in light of my own experiences, not surprising. I still have not been officially informed by PWC that a deal has been done. Although I have attended every stakeholder meeting, I found out yesterday, when the press contacted me—although I did subsequently have an e-mail from one of the partners, Vopak.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Naturally, as we have reached the endgame, there is lots of rumour and speculation, and certainly the Russian bid has been trying to get its case across since discovering it has not won. Is there not the following alternative theory, however: far from this having been in the hands of the administrators, a view was taken that perhaps the company in question was not good for the money and was looking for an opportunity to drop the price? Shell is part of the winning consortium, and given that Shell Haven has been closed, and given, too, the supremacy of this location—as my hon. Friend described—would not Shell have gone for any price?

Stephen Metcalfe: It is difficult for me to speculate about what might, or might not, have happened and what discussions might have taken place, but I will say that more than one company has been in touch with me.
	I find it extraordinary that the administrators, charged with getting the best deal for the bond holders—to whom, after all, they are responsible—did not inform the company with the largest bid at the time that there was some problem or the situation had changed. Perhaps if things had been different and if communications had not broken down, we might have been in a different position. I do not know what happened, but the upshot was that the bid was dropped. I believe that at that point trust broke down between the administrators and the Russian consortium wishing to buy the refinery. For the record, I have been aware for some time that both parties in this main bid were represented by PWC and while I make no comment about the existence of a Chinese wall I would be very interested to hear how both sides view the behaviour of the other, bearing in mind they were both from the same firm.
	As I said many times in the run-up to yesterday’s announcement, there has always been another bidder. I am concerned that it might not have been given a fair crack of the whip. I do not know whether that is true. This is a complex situation and I do not pretend to have the expertise required to pick through the detail and assess the quality of the arguments, from both sides, about what happened.

Rebecca Harris: Is it not crucial that we get to the bottom of this for the sake of all the people who will be losing their jobs, as well as other people in the supply chain? We need to know what went on, and that everything possible was done.

Stephen Metcalfe: I entirely agree. There could have been a different outcome if there had been more openness and transparency on all sides. I do not attribute fault to anyone, but these events need to be looked at. That different outcome could have been more beneficial to the bond holders, but my primary concern is, and will continue to be, for the work force who will pay the price for this breakdown in communications.
	For those unfamiliar with the refinery, I want to put it in historical context and explain its local importance. South Essex has a long and proud industrial heritage. At one time there were three refineries along the Thames. After PWC’s announcement, there will be none. When we talk about this refinery closing, we are not talking about just another business that got into trouble and failed to meet the challenges of the modern world. On the contrary, it was a very profitable business. It met the modern challenges. It was part of our collective DNA in south Essex. It was part of the very fabric of society there; people moved to work there. If it goes, the economic blow will have the biggest impact, however.

Ian Lavery: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I have experienced exactly the same situation in my constituency, and he is right in what he is saying about jobs. Thurrock council carried out an impact assessment study which showed that more than £100 million would be lost as a consequence of the closure of the refinery. Why did the Government not even ask the European Union whether state aid was available to save these jobs?

Stephen Metcalfe: Those discussions have been taking place behind closed doors and in private. I am sure that the Minister will tell us in his response what the reasons were and what avenues were explored. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Thurrock council’s economic impact assessment, conducted by DTZ, estimated the impact to be closer to £1 billion. That represents a potential contraction in economic activity of 0.07% of the national economy, which is getting close to a third of the contraction we experienced in the past quarter. One of my arguments has always been: are we really willing to let that go without exploring every avenue? That is one of the questions I have asked in private, and I am hoping that we will hear it answered by the Minister in public this evening.
	As the House will be aware, that call for state aid, including from me, has been growing over the past few weeks. I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House and, as I say, in private. I have asked that Ministers examine every conceivable angle, and check and double-check that there is no way they can help within the boundaries of what is possible.
	We have to remember that the refinery spends tens of millions a year in the UK on maintenance, chemicals, utilities and business rates. Every three to four years it has a maintenance project, which results in approximately £150 million being spent in the UK, and that was due to take place this autumn. The impact of this closure will be felt across the whole country, but the hardest hit of course will be those in the local area. The economic cost will be great. In employment terms alone, the closure of Coryton will affect 800 families directly through the loss of employment, leaving aside those who work for suppliers. That is 800 families who will now have a more difficult time feeding their families—putting food on the table. To add salt to the wound, if the planned turnaround project had gone ahead this autumn, the number employed there may well have risen to more than 2,000. It is hard to underestimate what a blow this is; we are exporting manufacturing jobs and replacing them with service jobs, and nothing like in the same numbers.
	I had also hoped, despite the work the Department has undertaken on developing a refining strategy, to persuade the Minister to look at again at the issue of diesel capacity; I had hoped that he might move on that just a little. As he will be aware, I and the Government are being accused of not doing enough to support this business—not doing as much as was done for the banks—so all I can do now is to seek publicly answers to questions that I have put privately for months. I realise that the Government were highly unlikely to be in a position to purchase the business, but I wanted to look for a more imaginative solution where they support the business on a commercial basis or through some form of loan guarantee.
	In light of the above, I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister. First, will he confirm that he and colleagues from across the Government looked at every conceivable angle on providing some form of financial assistance for this business so that it could be kept open? Will he tell the House whether he or any of his colleagues received a formal, structured and specific request for state assistance from the administrators, or were discussions just of a vague nature, along the lines of, “It might be helpful if some money was put across”? Can he reassure the House that the full level of economic impact was taken into account when they were deciding whether financial intervention was possible? By far the biggest impact will be on jobs, so what steps are the Minister and colleagues across the Government taking to support those who are losing their jobs, and when will that support be available?
	Finally, in the light of the information that has been handed to me in recent weeks, of what I have said this evening and of the concern that has been expressed about the process, the way in which it has been handled and the fact that the refinery is of such significance, will the Minister support my call for a parliamentary inquiry into the process, if for no other reason than to ensure that everyone, from the work force and the bond holders to each and every stakeholder, has been treated fairly by this process?

John Baron: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his hard work. He knows he has had our support in his endeavours. Given the valid concerns he has raised, can he explain where the downside is of having a parliamentary inquiry?

Stephen Metcalfe: Having considered it, I cannot see a downside. It would reassure people that the process had been transparent, open and conducted in a way that fulfilled all the legal requirements and that there were no other options.
	I do not want to give false hope, but I do want to give the assurances that there could have been no other possible outcome from the one announced yesterday. This is a sad day for the UK refining industry, a sad day for south Essex and a sad day for all those who have worked in and been connected with the refinery in the past. Above all, it is a very sad day for the hundreds of people who are currently working at the refinery and who after yesterday’s announcement will no longer have a safe and secure job and will be looking for new employment. I ask the Minister to do whatever he can to address the points I have raised.

Charles Hendry: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for securing the debate and for the way in which he has introduced it. Throughout these months, he has been assiduous in raising concerns with me and my fellow Ministers about the situation. He has pursued every opportunity to engage and to advocate the outcome that he and I would have wished, and he could not have been more diligent in representing his constituents. I also thank him for the way in which he has done that. There are some who believe that the best way of doing such things is in a blaze of media attention, but although that might sometimes secure a short-term political benefit, it makes complex legal and economic discussions much more complicated. I absolutely welcome his approach, which has been quiet, persistent, focused and diligent, even if it has not delivered the outcome that he and I would have wished.
	I am grateful, too, to my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for Southend West (Mr Amess), for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who takes a great interest in such matters. Although his constituency is on the other side of the country, he has a significant refinery of his own in his constituency to look after.
	This has been an extremely difficult period and we are all profoundly disappointed, especially for those who have been working so diligently at the refinery, that the administrator has not been able to find somebody who would continue refining at Coryton. The inevitable job losses were something that we all hoped could be avoided, but this has been an extraordinary example of a community pulling together. It is a tribute to the management of the plant, the trade unions and the local community, as led by the local councillors and Members of Parliament. They could not have presented a more seamless and supportive case to the administrator in their work.
	I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock that the Government are doing everything we can to ensure that the skilled
	people who have been working at Coryton find jobs and new posts. We are working with the Thurrock council taskforce, local agencies and Jobcentre Plus to ensure that they get the support they need at this difficult time.
	We must consider some of the background. Petroplus went into administration in January and since then the administrators have been working tirelessly to find a buyer for the refinery. They put in place an innovative tolling agreement with Morgan Stanley, who agreed to supply crude oil to the refinery so that it could continue operating while a buyer was found. That was a similar arrangement to the one the French Government and Shell put in place at the Petit Couronne refinery in France.
	The tolling agreement was extended until the end of May but ended on 28 May. At that point, as no similar arrangement could be negotiated to take it forward, the administrators had to take the difficult decision to start shutting down the refinery. Coryton has now ceased commercial refining and is in the process of being shut down. The first wave of redundancies is happening this week and our thoughts are with those people who are affected. The administrators have offered explicit guarantees that all workers made redundant will receive their statutory redundancy entitlements and we will do all we can to ensure that they are processed as quickly as possible.
	Over the past five months, the administrators have worked exceptionally hard to find a buyer. We in Government have done everything we could to support them in this task. We worked with the administrators early on to look at options for the refinery’s future, we convened a number of stakeholder meetings to ensure that everyone involved was aware of what was happening and UK Trade and Investment was involved in looking for potential investors. My hon. Friend raised particular issues about engagement with Fund Energy. I have been reassured today by the administrators and by representatives of Fund Energy that they have met on a continual basis throughout this process. They said that they continued to do so right up until the final decision was made. I believe, from the assurances I have had from the administrators, that they have complied with their statutory duties.

Frank Doran: Clearly, I share the concerns of all those affected by these matters, but the Minister is well aware that Coryton is not unique. In fact, I think it is a microcosm of the UK refining industry at the moment. There is not a single refinery in the country that is making money, and many are losing large sums. That is bound to get worse when EU emission requirements come into play later. The future of Coryton seems to be as a storage facility probably from a subsea pipeline bringing petrol in from Rotterdam. Are the Minister and the Government worried about what that implies for the security of our supplies in future?

Charles Hendry: I will respond specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s point, which goes to the heart of the situation we face.
	First, the UK faces extremely tough competition from other refineries in Europe and, increasingly, Asia. It is well known that there is overcapacity in the refinery sector in the UK and right across Europe. Eight European refineries have closed since 2009 and more closures are
	likely to happen in future. The International Energy Agency has reported that since 2008-09, more than 3 million barrels of oil per day of crude distillation capacity has closed and more is at risk. At the same time, significant refinery expansions are taking place in Asia in particular, outpacing expected demand growth. All this means that, as the hon. Gentleman said, profit margins are low for refineries in the UK.
	Secondly, the UK’s refineries produce broadly the right amount of fuel to meet demand in the UK but not the right type. Put simply, we produce more petrol than we consume and we use much more diesel than we produce. Since 2000, demand for petrol in the UK has decreased by 35%—more than a third—while demand for diesel has increased by 34%. These are evidently sustained trends and not a short-term blip. Overall, there has been a 9% decrease in the demand for fuel in the last decade due to economic conditions and better fuel economy from new cars. We have now put in place work to develop a refining strategy. That should have happened long ago, right the way back in the previous Administration when there was a 34% drop in demand for petrol. This was an entirely evident trend and it is a great shame that that work was not started before now so that we could have had a more structured approach.
	Thirdly, significant levels of capital investment were needed in the Coryton refinery to maintain refinery operations. These included the cost of the three-yearly turnaround—about £150 million—and any expenditure on adaptation to rebalance output between petrol and diesel products, which would have cost in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds. These evidently posed a massive barrier to potential new owners. In addition, the Coryton site is of exceptional value as an import terminal because of its location and amenities, with one of the biggest jetties anywhere, so it is not surprising that it has a higher sale value as an import terminal, which does not require the extra investment a refinery would need. It is clear that the market is very tough, and these conditions made the sale of Coryton as a refinery challenging.
	I want to reassure the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, that the Government considered very carefully whether financial assistance could be provided. There were extensive discussions between my Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury. Right across Government, all Departments that it was appropriate to involve were involved. Like my hon. Friend, the Government would have wished for a different outcome, but we did not believe it was right to put public money into a refinery.

Ian Lavery: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Hendry: Forgive me; this is a half-hour debate and there is not time to take further interventions.
	As I mentioned, there is existing overcapacity in the refining industry in the UK and Europe, and the declining
	demand for petrol means that it would not have been sustainable to put public money into the refinery. It would not have been a long-term solution, as simply funding the gap between a bid for an import terminal and a bid for the refinery would not have guaranteed the refinery’s long-term commercial success. It was clear that significant investment would have been needed over time to keep the refinery open. I was reassured by the Government’s work with fuel suppliers that Coryton’s closure would not have an impact on the security of supply of fuel to London and the south-east, because many other supply points and operational refineries could be used.
	To respond to the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, the administrators made a formal request on 15 May for the provision of Government assistance for one option of a number that they were considering. Such negotiations are inevitably controversial, but only one option on the table at the time required such assistance. The consideration of the case for financial assistance involved a range of issues, including the impact on security of supply, on energy resilience and on jobs in the local community. On each of those grounds, we concluded that there was not a sufficiently compelling case to intervene. Given that that was so clear, there was no case for seeking approval from the Commission, because that simply would not have been considered. While we accept that it is extremely sad that the refinery will close, I hope that there is some comfort from the investment for the new facility as an import terminal.
	My hon. Friend asked whether there should be a parliamentary inquiry, but that is a matter for the relevant Select Committee. Given the work that we are doing on developing a long-term strategic approach, I would welcome an investigation that would take that approach into account, and we would work closely with the Committee. However, it would be unlikely that such an inquiry would be completed in a time scale that would mean that it would make any difference to the situation at Coryton.
	In view of my hon. Friend’s comments, I shall write to PricewaterhouseCoopers in the morning to ask it to respond formally to each and every point that he made, and to seek the assurances that it should give him about the process. We have found it to be professional and thorough, and it is only right that he and his constituents have answers to every question.
	We are now moving forward with Thurrock and taking a lead on the taskforce. Through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we will do everything possible to bring new jobs and prosperity to the area. My hon. Friend has fought a diligent battle, and I am profoundly saddened—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

Criminal Law

That the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 5 March 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 478, Noes 9.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Criminal Law

That the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 March 2012, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 290, Noes 197.

Question accordingly agreed to.

European Semester in the uk

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 10834/12, relating to the Commission Communication: Action for stability, growth and jobs, No. 10557/12 and Addendum, relating to the draft Council Recommendation on the United Kingdom’s 2012 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on the United Kingdom’s convergence programme for 2012-2017, and No. 10846/12, relating to a Commission Staff Working Document: In depth review for the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No. 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances; welcomes the Commission’s support for the Government’s efforts to reduce the deficit and set the public finances on a sustainable path, which is consistent with the conclusions reached by the IMF and the OECD in their recent reviews of the UK economy; takes note of the Commission’s efforts to address timing difficulties with the European Semester; welcomes the Government’s approach to promoting growth domestically and at EU level; and welcomes the Government’s policy of securing assurances that the UK cannot be subject to sanctions in respect to the Stability and Growth Pact or the new Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 285, Noes 203.

Question accordingly agreed to.